BUSINESS BEFORE QUESTIONS

Public Appointments

The Vice-Chamberlain of the Household reported to the House two messages from Her Majesty the Queen:
	I have received your humble Address praying that I should appoint John Rhodes Horam to be an  Electoral Commissioner  in place of Baroness Browning with effect from 1 March 2012 for the period ending on 30 September  2014 . I will comply with your  request .
	I have received your humble address praying that I should appoint Professor Sir Andrew Likierman to the office of chair of the National Audit Office. I will comply with your request.

Speaker’s Statement

Mr Speaker: I have a short statement to make. Members will be aware of reports of a serious incident in the House last night. I have been informed by the Serjeant at Arms that the hon. Member for Falkirk (Eric Joyce) has been detained in police custody. The matter is being investigated. I take this matter very seriously, as do the House authorities. I ask that no further reference should be made to these reports in the Chamber today.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

TRANSPORT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Aviation

Lyn Brown: What recent assessment she has made of aviation capacity in the south-east; and if she will make a statement.

Justine Greening: The Department for Transport’s latest estimates of airport capacity are included in “UK Aviation Forecasts 2011”. These assume that no new runways are built in the UK but, where there is no explicit planning prohibition, airports develop as necessary to utilise their current potential runway capacity. Details of the capacity
	assumptions used are in table 2.6 of the published report, which is available on the Department’s website.

Lyn Brown: In November the Chancellor published his national infrastructure plan, committing the Government to exploring
	“all the options for maintaining the UK’s aviation hub status, with the exception of a third runway at Heathrow.”
	Just a month later, the Minister of State, who has responsibility for aviation, said that the Government would refuse permission for additional runways at Gatwick and Stansted, and in January the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) described suggestions of a new airport in the London area as “irresponsible environmentally” and made clear his opposition. Was the Chancellor wrong to say that all the options other than the third runway will be considered? Which alternative solutions are Ministers genuinely willing to consider?

Justine Greening: To be clear, the commitment in the coalition agreement still stands, but we recognise that maintaining a competitive international hub airport is incredibly important, which is why we have agreed to publish a call for evidence alongside the new aviation policy framework in March.

Charlie Elphicke: May I urge the Secretary of State in considering aircraft capacity to look first at the possibilities of expanding existing airports east of London, rather than building new ones, and at how the lower Thames crossing could assist with infrastructure?

Justine Greening: My hon. Friend is right to point out two things. First, we need to look at our transport system as a whole. It is about getting around, and that can involve not only aviation, but railways and roads. Secondly, the matter of the hub airport is incredibly important. It is also a medium to long-term issue. We received more than 600 responses to our original scoping document. We are considering those and will take some of them forward in the strategy document we will publish in March.

Seema Malhotra: Does the Secretary of State agree that, with Heathrow supporting more than 100,000 jobs in west London, the future of Heathrow and its competitiveness needs to remain at the heart of our national aviation strategy?

Justine Greening: The hon. Lady is right that Heathrow has an incredibly important role to play in aviation, not just for London and its economy but nationally, and of course for the many regional airports with connecting flights that hub into Heathrow and have passengers who then travel onwards. We are absolutely aware of that, and it is one reason we need to take a responsible approach to looking at the future of aviation in our country.

Philip Hollobone: If we are not going to build an additional runway at Heathrow but want London to maintain its international competitiveness, is there really no alternative but to build a new airport in the estuary east of London? Should not the Government show to that issue the same commitment that they are showing to high-speed rail?

Justine Greening: My hon. Friend, for whom I have a huge amount of respect, demonstrates why we need to have a measured approach to the issue, and he is right to point out that we now have cross-party consensus on the fact that there should not be a third runway at Heathrow. The final point that I make to him, however, is that we need to realise that capacity and connectivity are not exactly one and the same thing. We absolutely need to ensure that we have the connectivity for our aviation sector not only nationally but, in particular, at the hub airport, and in many respects that is absolutely the most important thing—to make sure that we stay competitive.

Jim Fitzpatrick: Given that my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) has exposed the Government’s dilemma on aviation capacity, in that they say they want to explore all options but, as she reports, have ruled out all options, and given also the report in today’s Financial Times that Ken Livingstone is against Boris island in order, as he says, to protect east London’s environment and to defend the west London economy, why has the Secretary of State not responded to the offer of my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) for cross-party talks to explore the possibility of a national aviation plan?

Justine Greening: The door is always open to talking with the Opposition on issues of national interest.

Rail Fares

Mark Lazarowicz: How her Department will calculate the level of rail fares for services between Scotland and England in January (a) 2013 and (b) 2014.

Theresa Villiers: The cap on regulated fares is calculated according to the formulae in franchise agreements. The current planning assumption, as set out in the 2010 spending review, is that the cap will increase by RPI plus 3% in January 2013 and in January 2014 for operators franchised by the Department for Transport. However, no final decision has been made.

Mark Lazarowicz: It is good to see the Minister in her place today, and I am sure that the whole House wishes her a speedy and full recovery from her accident.
	As well as the RPI plus 3% increase proposed by the Government here, the Scottish Government are proposing RPI plus 3% increases in rail fares in Scotland and the potential removal of sleeper services and of cross-border services north of Edinburgh, so my constituents and many people in Scotland face a double whammy. How can we expect people to continue to move on to the railways when we are putting such obstacles in their way?

Theresa Villiers: The hon. Gentleman raises very important issues, and the concerns that he raises are one reason why the Chancellor secured the funding to ensure that the 2012 increase would be just RPI plus 1%. We recognise, however, that it is vital that we get the cost of
	running the railways down, because that is the long-term, sustainable way to respond to passengers’ concerns about the level of fares.

Maria Eagle: I, too, welcome the right hon. Lady back to her place.
	Last month The Daily Telegraph was briefed that future fare rises are “not set in stone” and are “under constant review.” Will the Minister of State therefore tell the House whether she still intends to allow train companies to hike fares by as much as 8% above inflation in 2013 and in 2014, and has she taken any decisions about fare rises in the years after that?

Theresa Villiers: As I said in my opening answer on this question, the current assumption is based on RPI plus 3%, but we will keep those matters under review, as we did in relation to 2012, to see whether further funding can be secured in order to opt for a different approach. In reality, however, it is crucial that we get the costs of running the railways down—costs that spiralled during the Labour Government. They failed to respond to the problem and were severely criticised by their own Labour-dominated Select Committee at the time for not doing anything serious about rail fares. We are going to get the cost of the railways down so that we get better value for money for passengers.

Maria Eagle: The Minister seems to be saying one thing to the train companies and another to passengers. I have with me the invitation to tender for the west coast main line, which promises bidders that they can increase fares by up to 8% above inflation next year, by up to 8% above inflation the year after that and, then, by up to 6% above inflation every year for the rest of the entire 15-year franchise. So it seems that the decision has been taken. When is the Minister of State going to stand up to those vested interests and stand up for passengers?

Theresa Villiers: The shadow Secretary of State has resorted to the same old stuff about the fares basket flexibility that the leader of her party got completely wrong at Prime Minister’s questions. It was a fares basket flexibility that Labour suspended for one year and then we introduced, and the Labour Administration in Cardiff are still using that flexibility. It is entirely disingenuous for the shadow Secretary of State to get up and talk about—

Mr Speaker: Order. We do not use the word “disingenuous” in the Chamber, and I am sure that the Minister of State is happy to withdraw it. We are extremely grateful for her answer.

Shipping (Armed Guards)

Graeme Morrice: Whether she plans to consult on draft legislative proposals on use and regulation of armed guards on ships.

Michael Penning: The Government are not currently putting forward any legislative proposals for the use and regulation of armed guards. The possession of firearms is already regulated by the Home Office under the Firearms Act 1968. We have issued UK-flagged shipping guidance, and we intend to bring forward further work in the near future.

Graeme Morrice: I thank the Minister for his answer and welcome the announcement that armed guards can now be used in the protection of UK ships in areas affected by piracy. He will be aware, however, that the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee has described the Government’s interim guidance as “thin on detail”, while ship owners have called for regulation to clarify the use of armed guards. When do the Government intend to bring forward clearer guidance or regulation on this issue?

Michael Penning: The protection of the UK fishing fleet is a very important issue, especially given the piracy situation off Somalia. This is not a new development; armed guards were on British flagged ships long before we came into power. The issue was ignored, wrongly, by the previous Administration. We therefore made a conscious decision on whether we ignored it, wrongly, under UK law, or did something about it. Guidance was introduced, although I agree with the Select Committee that it needs to be firmed up. At the moment, we do not need legislation, but if we do, we will bring it forward.

Caroline Dinenage: What assessment has the Minister made of the economic impact of piracy in the Gulf of Aden?

Michael Penning: That is very difficult to do because no British-flagged ship under armed guard has been taken by pirates; they have attempted to do so but have not succeeded. That is an indication of why it was right and proper for us to move forward on this. There has recently been a decline in attacks. That is partly to do with the excellent work that NATO and our European colleagues are doing with the Royal Navy, partly to do with armed guards, and partly to do with best practice; a lot of it is to do with the weather, as well. We keep a very close eye on this, because it has a significant effect on our shipping as well as on the shipping of other European Union member states.

Brown Tourist Signs

Julian Smith: When she expects to publish the findings of her Department’s review of brown tourist signs.

Justine Greening: The review on brown tourist signs is ongoing, and we expect to publish revised guidelines in the summer of 2012.

Julian Smith: I thank the roads Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning) for all that he has done to sort out the brown sign debacle at Masham in my constituency. However, given that we have had quotes of £184,000 for two brown signs, will the Secretary of State look carefully as part of the review at why the signs cost so much?

Justine Greening: We have challenged the costs that were originally proposed, and they will be substantially lower. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend and to the roads Minister for working so closely with the Highways Agency to reach what should be a good solution to improving the brown signs for Masham, and I hope that we will be able to reach a successful conclusion shortly.

Bob Russell: Will there be some consistency on brown signs around the country? During the previous Government’s period in office, the Highways Agency removed all three signs welcoming people to Britain’s oldest recorded town. Can the Secretary of State assure us that we will have our signs reinstated?

Justine Greening: I think that the roads Minister will be meeting the hon. Gentleman in the next few weeks. We are committed to seeing how we can make better use of brown signs not only to guide motorists to their destinations but to make sure that we in the Department of Transport play our role in helping the tourist industry to do well in this country.

Trailers (Height)

Mark Pawsey: What discussions she has had with the European Commission on the height of trailers.

Michael Penning: I recognise that this is an important issue for UK hauliers, and I am pressing for a solution that protects our national interests. I raised my concerns with European Commission officials at the second Asia-Europe meeting of Transport Ministers in China in October. We are engaging fully with the European Commission on this issue, which concerns our hauliers greatly.

Mark Pawsey: The haulage industry is important to the country as a whole and to my constituency in particular. It has worked hard to maximise efficiency by making use of all the space in larger, streamlined containers. Lloyd Fraser Group in my constituency, which distributes Mr Kipling cakes among other things, is anxious to ensure that the negotiations allow it to remain competitive. Will the Minister give that reassurance?

Michael Penning: I wonder whether I need to declare an interest in Mr Kipling’s cakes. We must utilise our roads in the best possible way. If lorries are under the weight limit, 4 metre-plus trailers are of significant importance. This issue has been raised by the Austrians. I do not see why it should affect British hauliers in the UK.

Barry Sheerman: This is a serious question. It is not just about the height of the vehicles, but about their cabs. These vehicles are killing pedestrians and cyclists in our towns and countryside. The industry knows that cabs should be changed either on the continent or on this side of the channel. These vehicles are killing our people and the design should change.

Michael Penning: The hon. Gentleman raises an enormously important issue. However, the question was about the height of trailers. I accept that there are other issues and I am more than happy to meet cycling representatives and the industry, as I do on a regular basis. He raises a serious issue, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the height of trailers.

Flights (Scotland)

Anas Sarwar: What assessment she has made of the effect on services to Scotland of the bid by International Airlines Group to acquire BMI.

Theresa Villiers: The Department has made no such assessment. The proposed sale is a commercial matter between BMI’s owner and the prospective purchaser. Any competition issues arising from the proposed sale will be subject to the appropriate EU and UK competition authorities.

Anas Sarwar: BMI’s withdrawal of its flights from Heathrow to Glasgow last year left British Airways as the sole operator. Since then, average fares have increased by 34% and the number of flights on the route has decreased by 50%, affecting 1.8 million passengers and more than 300,000 small and medium-sized enterprises. What steps will the Minister take to ensure that Scottish businesses and the wider public are given access to a much more open, fair and competitive market?

Theresa Villiers: It is difficult for me, as a Minister, to comment on the specific deal, as that is a matter for the competition authorities. It is worth bearing in mind that Aberdeen, Edinburgh and Glasgow have 60,000 such flights a year, so there is excellent connectivity as things stand. It is important that in our discussions with the European Commission on its airports package we ensure that it is aware of the importance of regional connectivity. We will look into that in our aviation framework document. Our plans for High Speed 2 will deliver a three and a half hour journey time between Scottish destinations and London, which will provide an attractive alternative to aviation.

Andrew Bridgen: BMI’s headquarters is at Castle Donington in my constituency. Many of my constituents are very concerned about their employment prospects at the company. Will my right hon. Friend update the House on the progress of the proposed takeover by International Airlines Group?

Theresa Villiers: My understanding is that the directorate-general for competition at the European Commission has been informed, and that the Office of Fair Trading is in contact with the parties and the Commission on the proposed sale.

Michael Connarty: That was a very feeble answer from the Minister of State. Does she realise what British Airways is doing at the moment? To give an example, a 9.15 pm flight that I was supposed to take left at 10.36, after two other flights to City airport had been cancelled. It arrived after the Heathrow Express had left and I got home at 1.15 in the morning. That is what BA is doing now. This is not a question of competition. I want the Minister to tell the EU that it is not acceptable to the people of Scotland for BA to take over the BMI franchise. It will do what it is doing now and destroy the service from Edinburgh to this city.

Theresa Villiers: It is not the role of Ministers to make decisions on these deals. There are legal rules that put in place the role of independent competition authorities in deciding these questions. Of course the Government take seriously the importance of regional connectivity. That is one reason for our pressing ahead with HS2 and our Y-shaped network to Leeds and Manchester, which will deliver a three and a half hour journey time to Scotland, providing an excellent addition to current connectivity.

Freight Containers (Rail Network)

Ian Swales: What plans she has to ensure the rail network serving ports can carry modern freight containers.

Theresa Villiers: Our policy is to continue to develop the strategic freight network to drive UK economic growth and support the expansion of our maritime trade.

Ian Swales: I welcome the public investment to upgrade the rail connection from Teesport to the east coast main line by the end of this year. However, there is still no suitable east-west rail crossing for modern containers anywhere between the midlands and Scotland. Will the Minister also address that problem?

Theresa Villiers: The Government have a major programme of improving the capacity of our rail network to take freight, particularly the 9 feet 6 inches high cube containers that are so important a part of international trade. That is why the railway control period up to 2014 will see about £350 million spent on upgrading the network. A crucial part of that is improving links to ports, for example between Southampton and the west coast line and on the Felixstowe-Nuneaton line. That will provide major benefits on carbon emissions, road safety and relieving congestion on our roads.

Louise Ellman: What actions is the Minister taking to improve access to ports outside the south-east?

Theresa Villiers: The hon. Lady will have heard of the proposals being taken forward to improve gauge clearance to Teesport, and we are working on a number of other schemes and projects to improve rail freight connectivity with our major ports. Despite the deficit and the pressing need to reduce spending, our work on the strategic freight network has continued, and we propose to continue it in future.

Iain Stewart: Has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity to quantify what extra capacity there will be for freight transport on the classic rail network following High Speed 2?

Theresa Villiers: HS2 has done some major studies on that. I do not have the numbers in front of me, but it is clear that one of the major benefits of HS2 will be to free up paths on the existing north-south network for freight, and indeed for other passenger services, relieving the current congestion problems.

Local Bus Services

Yvonne Fovargue: What recent assessment she has made of the effect of changes in funding for local bus services on staying-on rates in education for 16 and 17-year-olds.

Norman Baker: I have made no specific assessment. It is for local decision makers to assess the impact of their decisions, consulting with their communities. Local authorities are required to include arrangements for transport provision and charges for 16 to 19-year-olds in full-time education in local transport policies. The Department for Education is also providing a £180 million bursary fund to support 16 to 19-year-olds who are experiencing real financial barriers to participating in education.

Yvonne Fovargue: Abby Hilton, a young constituent of mine, came to me last week and told of me her concern that her younger sister cannot follow in her footsteps to Winstanley college due to the rise in bus fares and the loss of education maintenance allowance. What assessment has been done of the cumulative impact of those two policies?

Norman Baker: I have been in regular contact with my colleagues at the Department for Education and the Confederation of Passenger Transport for some months now. Local members of the Youth Parliament in East Sussex have been to make a presentation to the Bus Partnership Forum, which I chair, and I have indicated to the CPT the need to work together with the Department to address the issue.

Paul Maynard: Does the Minister agree that forward-thinking principals of further education colleges are using their bursaries to think of innovative community transport-based solutions, to ensure that young people who find that their bus service has disappeared can still get to college safely, securely and cheaply and continue their education?

Norman Baker: I agree with my hon. Friend. There is certainly a role for community transport, which is why we have provided an extra £20 million over the past few months for investment in it. We have also encouraged the bus companies themselves to recognise that there is a potential future market in the age group in question.

Lilian Greenwood: Earlier this month, Barnardo’s revealed research showing the hardship experienced by young people trying to stay on in education. Its chief executive, Anne Marie Carrie, said that it was
	“an absolute disgrace that some students are now being forced to skip meals in order to afford the bus to college.”
	Bus companies tell us that, as a result of the Minister’s cuts to the bus service operators grant, they cannot afford to offer a concessionary fare scheme for those students. Will he now review the decision to cut BSOG, to provide affordable transport for those young people?

Norman Baker: It is fair to say that the previous Government’s research showed that only one in 10 young people receiving EMA said that it was the deciding factor—

Maria Eagle: That is rubbish.

Norman Baker: I do not know that it is rubbish; it is Labour’s research that I am referring to.
	On the issue of moving forward on concessionary fares, I do not know whether the Labour party is pledging a new spending commitment, but its own research shows that £740 million would be required for the concession that it is advocating—a few days after the shadow Secretary of State announced that she would have a more responsible attitude to finance. [ Interruption .]

Julian Huppert: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. Before I call Dr Huppert, I say to the hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) that it is not very good form to heckle, but to heckle when sitting in the Chamber fiddling with a BlackBerry is just rank discourteous. It is so blindingly obvious.

Julian Huppert: Liberal Democrat councillors on Cambridgeshire county council have proposed a fully funded scheme that would provide free public transport for 16 to 19-year-olds who are seeking education, employment or training. Would the Minister support such a scheme and encourage Cambridgeshire and other councils to look carefully at such ideas?

Norman Baker: I certainly would support such a scheme and I welcome that initiative. The reality is that some councils provide support for young people to get to education better than other councils provide it. The matter is largely one for local authorities. Good practice is out there and should be replicated wherever possible.

Railway Companies (Executive Pay)

Hugh Bayley: What steps she plans to take to limit the bonuses and overall remuneration of executive directors of privately owned but publicly subsidised railway companies.

Justine Greening: Bonuses at shareholder-owned private sector companies are a matter for their remuneration committees and shareholders. In respect of Network Rail, I very much welcome the decision by the company’s executive directors to forgo this year’s annual bonuses.

Hugh Bayley: I ask the Secretary of State to think further on that. Of the six private companies that receive enormous subsidies from the taxpayer for running rail franchises, only one publishes information on the remuneration of its directors—the highest paid director receives £344,000 a year. Will she consider publishing, in an anonymised form if necessary, the salaries of all directors and staff of companies that receive money from the taxpayer when those salaries are higher, say, than her own?

Justine Greening: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting suggestion. The Government are looking across the board at how we can introduce corporate governance rules that lead to a more responsible approach by companies, and that give shareholders the ability to hold their executive to account more effectively. Transparency is a key part of the Government’s agenda too, so I shall reflect on what he says.

Mark Lancaster: I encourage the Secretary of State to come to visit the new Network Rail headquarters in Milton Keynes, not because I want her to interfere in remuneration—that is best left to the company—but so that she can celebrate the 1,000 new jobs that have been created there.

Justine Greening: I would be delighted to visit Milton Keynes. Network Rail is doing a huge amount of work on skills and apprenticeships. We should reflect on that and celebrate it.

Transport Scheme Funding

Ian Lucas: Which transport schemes will be funded by both her Department and the Regional Growth Fund.

Norman Baker: One transport project secured funding from both the Department and the regional growth fund—the low emission transport and sustainable manufacturing north-east bid from Gateshead college, which was successful in round 2 of the regional growth fund. The project was awarded £6.3 million as part of a £45.6 million package that includes £3 million from the Government’s “Plugged-in Places” programme. Both funding streams support the development of high-quality transport technology for low-emission vehicles.

Ian Lucas: The Labour Welsh Government are funding the building of a relief road to Wrexham industrial estate to facilitate growth and to help create jobs. Unfortunately, the Government on the Cheshire side of the border are blocking good access. The project, which is extremely important, could help to facilitate growth, should the Government believe in that. Can the regional growth fund help?

Norman Baker: The regional growth fund has been very well received and is producing jobs in areas of high unemployment and from where the public sector is withdrawing to some extent. The fund is important and it has been successful. My Department is investing heavily in infrastructure, but I will look into the specific matter to which the hon. Gentleman refers. The Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), will reply to the hon. Gentleman.

John Stevenson: Does the Minister agree that local government, too, has a responsibility to promote transport projects, particularly those that will help to promote economic growth?

Norman Baker: I entirely agree. We inherited a substantial pipeline of schemes from the previous Government. I am happy to say that as a consequence of this Government’s
	decision to invest in transport infrastructure and recognise the value of that to employment, we have given substantial sums of money to local government to progress a large number of major local schemes.

Cycling

Tim Farron: How much of the local sustainable transport fund and the funding for the growth strategy for cycling and walking will be spent on cycle safety in the next financial year.

Norman Baker: During 2012-13, £11 million pounds will be spent on Bikeability and £8 million will be spent through the growth strategy on off-road infrastructure for cyclists. Funding to local authorities for cycling through successful local sustainable transport fund projects is at least £15 million in the forthcoming year. Approximately 40% of the measures funded relate to infrastructure or training, both of which will help cycle safety.

Tim Farron: With the recent deaths of several cyclists in south Lakeland, especially along the A590 and A591, which are managed by the Highways Agency, what can the Government do to improve safety for cyclists in rural areas and especially on those roads?

Norman Baker: I am obviously conscious that any death involving a cyclist on the roads is one too many. It is fair to put these matters in context, however. The number of cyclists killed on the roads has declined by 40%, or thereabouts, over the past 15 years. My hon. Friend is right, though, to raise the particular issue of the A590 and the A591, which is a county road. I have asked the Highways Agency and Cumbria county council to work together on this matter and to let me know what steps they intend to take to improve cycle safety there.

Drink-drive Rehabilitation Scheme

Paul Blomfield: What assessment she has made of the likely effect of proposed changes to the drink-drive rehabilitation scheme.

Michael Penning: The consultation document, “New Approval Arrangements for Drink-Drive Rehabilitation Courses”, published in November 2011, contained an initial impact assessment outlining the costs and benefits of the proposals.

Paul Blomfield: Does the Minister accept that there is real concern among those interested in reducing reoffending, including the Justices’ Clerks’ Society, which provides legal advice to magistrates, that introducing multiple providers in an area will lead to a price-driven race to the bottom, with a consequent impact on reoffending rates? Would not a better solution be to have competitive tendering for a single provider in an area to ensure quality and effectiveness of the services?

Michael Penning: This matter has been raised with me privately in the past couple of days by several hon. Members in exactly the way the hon. Gentleman asked
	his question. I will be looking at the matter. The principle of drink-drive rehabilitation schemes is important. Evidence shows that those who take the schemes are more than two and a half times less likely to reoffend—or at least to be caught reoffending; we do not actually know whether they are reoffending, of course. However, we will consider his point.

Topical Questions

Annette Brooke: If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

Justine Greening: It has been a busy time, and over the last period we have taken important steps to improve the experience of passengers and motorists, through measures to improve customer service in garages while keeping the annual MOT test; tackling with the industry the unacceptable hikes that people face in the cost of insuring their car; providing a fairer deal for British hauliers through a lorry road user charge; and boosting capacity on the west coast main line, with more than 100 extra carriages under the new franchise. Furthermore, through the Civil Aviation Bill, we are putting passengers at the heart of how our major airports are run and giving more protection to holidaymakers by extending the air travel organisers’ licence scheme.

Annette Brooke: How is it possible for a company to win a competitive tender to provide a bus service but to cease operating it within months, claiming that it is unviable, and causing great concern to those in villages dependent on the service and, presumably, extra expense to Dorset county council given that this service must be restored? What advice can the Secretary of State give?

Justine Greening: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that question. She will be aware that all local bus operators must have an operators’ licence, which indicates financial standing at the time that the operator was licensed by a traffic commissioner. Local transport authorities can check with the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency whether operators hold a current licence. I am not aware of any barrier to a local transport authority ensuring, through its procurement process, whether the current financial status of a bus operator is sound, but I shall ask my officials to explore the matter further with the county council.

Steve Rotheram: Will the Secretary of State explain why the latest proposals for a new high-speed rail service will see journey times to Liverpool increase compared with earlier plans, and will she accept that people in Liverpool will be rightly suspicious about why they are being left in the slow lane by this Tory-led Government?

Justine Greening: I will be happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss this issue because I can assure him and his constituents that people in Liverpool are absolutely not being left in the slow lane. They will benefit from the improvements in times on the west coast main line. I am happy to talk with him about
	phase 2 and how we can, I hope, ensure that Liverpool benefits, as one of the cities that will not be on the line but will be in the region served by it.

Ian Swales: In the light of research from the continent showing that high-speed rail has an adverse effect on the economy of towns and cities not on the networks, what assessment has the Secretary of State made of the impact of High Speed 2 on the north-east of England?

Justine Greening: We looked closely at the wider economic impacts. In fact, looking at high-speed rail’s impact in other countries, such as France, one sees that there has been a broader regional benefit. I am determined to work not only with the cities where high-speed rail will stop but with the broader regions served to ensure that we make the most of the huge opportunity that I think high-speed rail presents.

Seema Malhotra: Lorries are involved in 19% of cyclist fatalities. Does the Minister support the call by The Times cycling campaign to require lorries entering city centres to have sensors and mirrors by law to reduce cycling fatalities?

Michael Penning: This is an important piece of work that needs to be done. We are looking closely at how sensors and mirrors will work, and working with our European partners on mirrors in particular. Sensors are a big issue, and only the other day I met the family of someone who had been killed by a lorry driver turning left at a red light. The conclusion of that discussion was that sensors would not necessarily have helped in that case. In other cases, if the sensor is set off by bollards or traffic lights, and so on, drivers will ignore the beeping and not do what they should, which is to see whether there is a cyclist. However, we are looking closely at this issue, and we will work closely with everybody in this House and in the cycling fraternity to ensure that we make it as safe as possible for cyclists.

Duncan Hames: The Department will soon receive a bid to the sustainable local transport fund from Wiltshire council to support services on the Wiltshire TransWilts community rail partnership. Will the Minister give the bid full consideration? Far from being the rural branch service that one might expect from current service levels, the line connects all the major economic centres of Wiltshire with Swindon, and indeed three mainline railways.

Norman Baker: I am aware that my hon. Friend is a champion of the line, and we are certainly interested in proposals that integrate rail with other services. I cannot, of course, anticipate the assessment of the bid, but I look forward to receiving the bid, and I recognise and note his support for the scheme.

Karl Turner: I met recently with the roads Minister, the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), along with my hon.
	Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson), to discuss the much needed improvements on the A63 and Castle street in Hull. I wonder whether he can give the House, and me in particular, an assurance that pre-construction funding will be announced soon.

Michael Penning: In the autumn statement we announced extra funding for road projects and for projects where we could literally press the button to allow growth to take place. In what I thought was a very amicable meeting with the hon. Gentleman and his colleague, we said that we were looking at new programmes. We are very aware of the effects of the road in question on local infrastructure, particularly the port, and as we go forward we will work with him and the local authority up there to see whether the project can go ahead.

Jeremy Lefroy: HS2 will shape the economic geography of the country for decades. Will my right hon. Friend meet with colleagues and me to discuss the importance of a stop on HS2 in the north Staffordshire/south Cheshire area, which contains the 10th largest conurbation in the country?

Justine Greening: I would be very happy to do so. My hon. Friend is quite right, on behalf of the community he represents, to want to look at how high-speed rail can benefit that community, and I am happy to have those discussions with him.

Michael Connarty: First, let me thank the Secretary of State for the response from her Minister, the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), to my letter about people pulling horse boxes over seven and a half tonnes, which we have found prevents people who go to gymkhanas with their children, for example, in a larger vehicle from being able to do so, because they cannot fit in a rest period. Can she give me any idea of how long it will take for the derogation that she is seeking from the EU to allow people to carry more than one or two horses to gymkhanas in the summer?

Justine Greening: Although I cannot give the hon. Gentleman an exact timeline, I can assure him that we are working hard on this matter, and he was quite right to raise it in the first place.

Paul Maynard: I am sure that Ministers are all welcoming The Times campaign for safer cycling. What steps does the Department think it can take to ensure that cyclists join with motorists in taking responsibility for ensuring their own safety while cycling, for example by ensuring that their bicycles have bells attached and that they are not listening to music while cycling?

Michael Penning: It is the responsibility of everybody on the highway to ensure that they are aware of what their situation is, alert to what is going on around them—particularly if they are cyclists—and, at the same time, visible to other road users. At the same time, however, they need to be protected as well.

Margaret Beckett: The Secretary of State will know that there is great interest in the city of Derby in the decision that she has to make about the procurement of eVoyager trains for Cross Country. Can she update the House on that?

Justine Greening: I believe we are making good progress, and the right hon. Lady will be pleased to hear that I am meeting Bombardier later today.

Elizabeth Truss: In order to upgrade the service to half-hourly on the Fen line and the Norwich-Cambridge line, there needs to be an upgrade at the Ely North junction. Network Rail has conducted an economic study that suggests that this will have a positive benefit, and the Department for Transport wants to specify it in the next franchise. May I ask what progress has been made to move forward on this investment?

Theresa Villiers: I know that my hon. Friend is a strong campaigner for improvements to the rail lines that serve her constituency. This is something that we are looking at carefully. We have asked Network Rail to do important work on deciding how we might improve the frequency of the services in the way that she wishes to see, and whether the infrastructure needed to deliver that is within the budgets that have already been allocated to Network Rail. We will also look at what we might be able to do in the next control period, as part of our high-level output specification—HLOS—statement, which we will publish in the summer.

Jonathan Ashworth: Will the Minister update the House on the Department’s attitude towards the electrification of the midland main line? There is widespread concern that, because of HS2 and other pressures, the electrification will not go ahead for quite some time. It would, however, provide a huge boost to the east midlands economy and to cities such as Leicester.

Theresa Villiers: Leicester and the communities around it have been running a very good campaign on this issue. The Government have made it clear that we see the progressive electrification of the rail network as an important part of our transport and environmental policy. The electrification of the midland main line has been prioritised by the industry in its initial industry plan, which will form an important part of the decisions that we have to make on what will be funded in the next railway control period. We will give further details in our HLOS statement in July.

John Leech: Given the recent disappointing Christmas drink-drive statistics, is it now time to revisit the decision not to accept the North review’s recommendation to reduce the drink-drive limit?

Michael Penning: I was not as disappointed by the Christmas drink-drive campaign as the hon. Gentleman was. Any drink-driving is wrong, and it should not happen, but we targeted specific areas—namely, those who drink excessively and younger drivers—and that campaign was successful. We will continue to push to
	ensure that people understand that they should not drink and drive, and that if they do, they will be prosecuted.

WOMEN AND EQUALITIES

The Minister for Women and Equalities was asked—

Economy

Fiona Mactaggart: What recent assessment she has made of the contribution of women to the economy; and if she will make a statement.

Theresa May: Women’s role in the economy is obviously very important. Making better use of women’s skills is good for the economy and good for women. That is why we are introducing universal credit to help to make work pay—including an extra £300 million for child care. We are also supporting women’s enterprise, encouraging greater transparency on gender equality, and working with business to ensure that more women reach the boardrooms of our leading companies.

Fiona Mactaggart: From the Minister’s answer, one would not realise that since she has been in that role, the level of women’s unemployment has risen by 27%. Given that the majority of retail workers are women, and that retail companies are now reducing the hours that they offer to paid workers and substituting them with unpaid workers, what conversations has she had with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on protecting women in the retail sector?

Theresa May: First, I must tell the hon. Lady that there are tens of thousands more women in employment today than there were when her party left government in 2010. On the issue of retailers, we have an excellent work experience scheme that is giving young people very good opportunities for work experience, on a voluntary basis, which will help them to get into the workplace. I think that it is time for the hon. Lady to stop talking retailers down. A career in retailing can be an extremely good career. There are many people at the top of retailing who started their working life on the shop floor, and retailers have often led the way in providing flexible working opportunities for women.

Philip Hollobone: According to the Department’s own figures, women have the lowest representation among engineering professionals, information and communication technology professionals, architects, town planners and surveyors. What is being done to tackle that issue?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend raises an extremely valid point. I have always had a particular bee in my bonnet about encouraging women to take up careers in engineering. We are trying to ensure that women are given proper information about such opportunities, by refocusing and recasting the careers advice that is given to young people and, indeed, to people of all ages throughout
	their careers. In that way, we want to open up opportunities to young people, including young women, so that they do not feel that they are simply being pushed down what one might call the traditional, stereotyped routes.

Yvette Cooper: This week I was contacted about a mother who is working 22 hours in a local shop. She cannot get the extra regular hours she wants, although she has tried hard—she cannot find alternative work, but at least she has a job, is contributing to the economy and is supporting her family. Her husband has lost his job and is struggling to get a new one because he has had a stroke. In six weeks’ time the Government will take away the working tax credit from her family, and they could lose over £3,000. They will not be able to pay their mortgage; they will be better off if she gives up work; they will be better off if the family splits up. This is going to happen in April. Does the Home Secretary support this policy, which will hit thousands of working women, and what advice would she give to that mother now?

Theresa May: The right hon. Lady raises a very particular case, but the issue is about the welfare—[Interruption.] Perhaps Opposition Members could wait for me to finish my sentence before they try to interrupt. The right hon. Lady has raised a particular case, but the issue is about welfare reform and the particular welfare reforms that this Government are putting through. I know that the Opposition find it difficult to decide where they position themselves on welfare reform, but it is necessary for us to reform the welfare system. Crucially, what we will do—and it will be of benefit to women—is introduce the universal credit, which will make work pay. I applaud people who want to get into the workplace in order to provide for themselves and their families, so it is important to ensure that the benefit system makes work pay. That is why we are introducing universal credit and making it easier under it for people to work fewer than 16 hours and still have access to child care support.

Female Genital Mutilation

Jane Ellison: What steps the Government are taking to identify and safeguard girls at risk of being taken out of the UK to undergo female genital mutilation.

Lynne Featherstone: I thank and commend my hon. Friend for her work on this subject, and congratulate her on her effective leadership of the all-party parliamentary group on female genital mutilation. The Government’s approach to ending female genital mutilation is set out in our “Call to End Violence Against Women and Girls”. We have published guidance for all front-line professions; we are raising awareness among children; and we are supporting front-line practitioners.

Jane Ellison: I thank the Minister for her response and for her support for the all-party group. Will she urge officials, particularly those working on the UK’s borders, to play their full part in enforcing the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003?

Lynne Featherstone: UK border staff already play an important role in our strategy to prevent FGM. As I indicated, we have already produced the guidelines; I will undertake to make sure that the relevant staff read them.

Diana Johnson: Is not statutory personal, social, health and economic education in schools an important way of equipping our young women to know what their rights are in this area?

Lynne Featherstone: I believe the hon. Lady asked me about PSHE at the last parliamentary questions. PSHE exists for a number of reasons and it is under review by the Department for Education. We are raising children’s awareness of these issues and we jointly produced a film, which is being distributed.

Disability Hate Crimes

Mark Menzies: What steps she is taking to reduce disability hate crime.

Maria Miller: No one should fear abuse for who they are, and tackling hate crime against disabled people is an issue that this Government take very seriously. We are improving the recording of such crimes, and working with the voluntary partners to encourage more victims to come forward. We will publish the Government’s new action plan on hate crime shortly.

Mark Menzies: I thank my hon. Friend for her answer, but what specific measures are the Government taking to encourage victims to come forward so that we can finally stamp out this atrocious crime?

Maria Miller: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to want to know the specifics, as under-reporting is a real concern in this area. That is why we continue to work with the police and the voluntary sector, including with organisations like Radar, which has designed initiatives to increase the reporting of hate crime through third-party reporting organisations. I urge my hon. Friend and other hon. Members to take this opportunity to look at the guidance on hate crime that we issued yesterday to see how they can help to drive awareness of this issue in their own constituencies.

Sheila Gilmore: The Minister will be aware that the recent report from the Work and Pensions Select Committee on the transition from disability living allowance to personal independence payment has made it clear yet again that some statements made by the Department have themselves encouraged a negative view of people with disabilities. What steps is she taking to ensure that anything coming out from the Department cannot be misinterpreted in that way?

Maria Miller: I agree with the hon. Lady. Anything that fuels hostility or harassment is absolutely unacceptable. I believe that for too long the benefits system itself has trapped people in a life of welfare dependency, and that if we are to tackle this issue effectively, it must be subjected to a radical overhaul. Perhaps it is those who are reluctant to accept such a change in the benefits system, which has trapped 5 million people on out-of-work benefits, who are standing in the way of what is needed.

Tom Brake: Is the Minister aware that according to the findings of research conducted by the Muscular Dystrophy Campaign, published in The Independent yesterday, 80% of young disabled people do not believe that the police will act on their concerns about disability hate crime? Will she undertake to talk to the Home Secretary about the matter, in order to ensure that police authorities and, soon, elected police and crime commissioners take the matter seriously?

Maria Miller: My hon. Friend is right: that is an excellent piece of research. We are focusing on helping voluntary sector partners, including Radar to do more to enable disabled people to report to third sector organisations so that they can gain the access to justice that they need.

Unemployment

Andrew Miller: What steps she is taking to tackle women's unemployment.

Maria Miller: The Government are helping women to move into employment, including self-employment, through the Work programme and our business mentoring scheme. We are also improving careers advice and training, and encouraging more women to enter apprenticeships. The action that we are taking to increase flexibility in the workplace and to support child care costs will help to provide more opportunities for women.

Andrew Miller: As the Minister will know, women contribute significantly to the employment base in my constituency, but there are serious problems on the horizon, first as a result of lost local government jobs and secondly because of the hugely increasing demand for, and cost of, child care. What will the Government do about those serious problems?

Maria Miller: The hon. Gentleman has raised some important points. Yes, it can be very difficult for women in the workplace at present, although, as we heard earlier, there are 50,000 more women in work than there were a year ago.
	Child care can present a significant barrier to a return to employment. We will be spending some £300 million under the universal credit scheme to give more women who are working shorter hours access to child care, and, as already been announced, we are increasing early years education funding to some £760 million to give all three-to-four-year-olds 15 hours of education a week. Those are some practical measures that we are taking to help the hon. Gentleman’s constituents, and other women throughout the country, to return to work.

Anne McIntosh: Is my hon. Friend aware of the specific difficulties of women who want to return to work after having a family? What help are we giving such women, particularly those who wish to work part time for a period?

Maria Miller: My hon. Friend is right: it can be difficult for women to return to the workplace. Programmes such as the Work programme can make a real difference
	by ensuring that women, and indeed anyone who wants to return to work, have the skills that will get them jobs. The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), is extending the work experience scheme so that women have a solid foundation of experience to include in their CVs, which will help them to obtain work in the long term.

Ann McKechin: The Olympic Delivery Authority has set an excellent example by securing construction jobs on the Olympics site for more than 1,000 women. What lessons will the Minister take from that in terms of using Government procurement to ensure that women have a fair chance of obtaining jobs, and better-paid jobs?

Maria Miller: We need to ensure that women have broad horizons when it comes to obtaining jobs in, for instance, engineering and construction. Through programmes such as the Work programme, we can give people opportunities to gain experience that can make a real difference to their ability to secure jobs, because they can bring that experience into play during job interviews.

Income Tax

Jo Swinson: How many women have ceased to be liable for income tax since May 2010.

Theresa May: The Government are committed to supporting working women. We have increased the personal income tax allowance in successive Budgets, so that anyone earning below £8,105 in 2012-13 will pay no income tax whatsoever. Those changes will take 1.1 million low-income people out of tax altogether, and more than half of them will be women.

Jo Swinson: I strongly support the coalition Government policy of raising the tax threshold to help people on low and middle incomes, which, of course, particularly helps women, who are more likely to work part-time. Would not more women benefit if the Government went further and faster towards raising the threshold to £10,000, and will my right hon. Friend encourage her Treasury colleagues to make that a priority in the forthcoming Budget?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend is tempting me to go down a route that would be straying on to the role of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Decisions on the way in which we will achieve that coalition commitment will be taken in future Budgets.

Domestic and Family Violence

Robert Flello: What steps she is taking to support victims of domestic and family violence.

Lynne Featherstone: The Government’s approach to tackling domestic and family violence is set out in our strategy to end violence against women and girls and the supporting action plan. This action plan includes 88 different actions for a wide range of Government Departments and our external
	partners, many of which have already been delivered. A refreshed action plan will be published on 8 March 2012.

Robert Flello: A recent report by Professor Sylvia Walby shows that Women’s Aid is daily having to turn away almost one in 10 women seeking refuge because of the substantial cuts in national budgets. Warm words achieve nothing. What is the Minister going to do about this?

Lynne Featherstone: The hon. Gentleman raises an issue that has been raised before. The Supporting People budget is £6.5 billion. It is the largest budget and it has been cut by only 1%, so if Women’s Aid is facing a bigger cut, local authorities need to hear loud and clear what the Home Secretary and I have said. We have ring-fenced £28 million of central funding to send out a loud and clear message to local governments not to cut funding. Furthermore, the national helplines are still being funded by central Government.

Rehman Chishti: Honour-based violence is linked to domestic violence, and I am sure the Minister is aware of a recent report stating that there were more than 2,800 incidents of honour-based violence in our country last year. What steps are we taking to deal with this horrendous practice?

Lynne Featherstone: The Government condemn this awful practice. We are committed to tackling honour-based violence and the action plan to end violence against women and girls sets out our approach. It includes working with partners to identify what more can be done. Next week I will be in New York to attend the commission on the status of women, where I will speak on forced marriage for Plan UK.

Kate Green: Aylesbury women’s centre is closing its domestic violence service; two out of six of the Imkaan refuges that provide specialist help for black and minority ethnic women are closing; Trafford Women’s Aid is losing half its council funding for the refuge; Devon domestic violence and abuse services are losing half their staff; in Northumbria, the counselling service, paid for by the police, at the sexual assault referral centre has been stopped; and our women’s safety commission has found countless examples across the country of services that protect women being disproportionately hit, putting women’s safety at risk. The Government cannot palm the blame on to local authorities. Will the Minister take her responsibility for women’s safety seriously and urgently conduct a national audit of the support available for women and girls at risk of violence, to make sure their protection is not being removed?

Lynne Featherstone: If we were not dealing with the greatest deficit in peacetime Britain, we may not have had to do anything. As I said to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello), the Supporting People budget of £6.5 billion has been cut by only 1%. The matters the hon. Lady raises are local matters and we have made the situation perfectly clear and sent out a message to local government not to make the voluntary sector a soft target. When the hon. Lady publishes her report, I trust she will send it to all local authorities.

Business of the House

Angela Eagle: Will the Leader of the House please give us the business for next week?

George Young: The business for the week commencing 27 February will be as follows:
	Monday 27 February—Estimates day [4th allotted day]. There will be debates on funding for the Olympics and Paralympics, and on the Forensic Science Service.
	Further details will be given in the Official Report.
	[ The details are as follows:  Funding for the Olympics and Paralympics: Oral evidence taken before the Culture, Media and S p ort Committee on 14 and 21 December 2010, HC 689 I and II, 17 May 2011, HC 689-III, 15 Novem ber 2011, HC 689-IV, and 24 Janu ary 2 012, HC 689-V; Forensic Science S ervice :  7th  r eport from the Scien ce and Technology Committee of S ession 2010- 12, HC 855; Government response—The Forensic Science Service, Cm  8215 . ]
	Tuesday 28 February— Estimates day [5th allotted day]. There will be debates on transport and the economy and on preparations for the Rio plus 20 summit.
	Further details will be given in the Official Report.
	[The details are as follows: Transport and the Economy: 3rd  r eport from the Tra nsport Committee of Session 2010 -12, HC 473; Government Response—4th  s pecial  r eport from the Transport Committee of  S ession 2010-12, HC 962; Prep arations for the Rio+20 summit:  8th  r eport from the E nvironmental Audit committee of S ession 2010-12, HC 1026; Government  response—5th s pecial  r eport from the Environmental Audit Committee of  S ession 2010-12, HC 1737.]
	At 10 pm the House will be asked to agree all outstanding estimates.
	Wednesday 29 February—Second Reading of the Water Industry (Financial Assistance) Bill, followed by proceedings on the Supply and Appropriation (Anticipation and Adjustments) Bill.
	Thursday 1 March—Motion relating to CPI/RPI pensions uprating, followed by a general debate on Welsh affairs. The subject for these debates has been nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.
	The provisional business for the week commencing 5 March will include:
	Monday 5 March— Opposition day [un-allotted day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
	I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for 1, 8 and 15 March 2012 will be:
	Thursday 1 March—Debate on rebalancing the Northern Ireland economy.
	Thursday 8 March—Debate on the common agricultural policy after 2013.
	Thursday 15 March—Debate on the effectiveness of UK Trade & Investment.

Angela Eagle: I thank the Leader of the House for his statement.
	Every time that I have raised the question of the Health and Social Care Bill, the right hon. Gentleman has claimed that he supports it, and I was beginning to worry that he might actually be a true believer in it. So I was delighted to read that Downing street sources had fingered him as one of the Cabinet’s heroic three who had briefed Conservative Home about their opposition to the Bill. May I welcome him to a just cause? He joins the company of patients, doctors, nurses, midwives, royal colleges and health managers—in fact, he joins just about anyone who has anything to do with the NHS. These are all the people who were locked out of No. 10 when the Prime Minister held his self-styled “summit” on Monday, which was just another public relations stunt from a Prime Minister who thinks that that is what his job is about. A year ago, the Prime Minister said he had to listen to those in the NHS, but now he shuts the door on them if they dare to disagree with him.
	Yesterday, the hon. Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson), explaining all this away, said that we should ignore the views of the royal college because general practitioners had been opposed to Labour’s 1948 Bill founding the NHS. That was not the best argument for a Conservative MP to advance, because if Labour had listened to the Conservatives then, there would be no NHS today. The Conservative party was wrong then and it is wrong now, so will the Government see sense, listen to even the Leader of the House and drop the Health and Social Care Bill.
	Fifteen Liberal Democrats signed early-day motion 2659, which states:
	[That this House expects the Governme nt to respect the ruling by the I nformation Commissioner and to publish the risk register associated with the Health and Social Care Bill reforms in advance of Report Stage in the House of Lords in order to ensure that it informs that debate.]
	Yesterday, there was an almost identically worded motion on the Order Paper, but astonishingly only four Liberal Democrats joined us to vote for it—the rest abandoned their principles and shamefully scurried through the Government Lobby or sat on their hands. This week, Russian scientists announced they had grown an extinct plant from seeds frozen in the permafrost for the past 30,000 years. Liberal Democrats have clearly decided to put their principles into a similar deep freeze. Let me tell them that they are kidding themselves if they think they can store them away until the next election.
	There are rumours going around that the Deputy Prime Minister, who astonishingly did not turn up to vote last night, is encouraging Liberal Democrats in the Lords to wreck the Health and Social Care Bill. So will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on coalition unity, to give Liberal Democrats a chance to make up their minds on whether they are in the Government or not? They cannot be a bit of both.
	The House was grateful to the Leader of the House for announcing the forthcoming parliamentary calendar. The Government are planning for the House to rise on Tuesday 27 March, Tuesday 17 July, Tuesday 18 September and Tuesday 13 November. In total, two thirds of the days on which the House has risen since the election have been Tuesdays. Will the Leader of the House now find time for a debate on why the Government are so keen for the House to rise on Tuesdays? The Prime
	Minister operates a lock-out policy at No. 10 for his health critics, he cannot stand criticism, he gets rattled at the Dispatch Box and now it looks very much like he is running away from Prime Minister’s questions at every opportunity.
	Today, Royal Bank of Scotland has announced that its losses doubled last year. There have been 3,500 job cuts and front-line bank staff have been offered a 1% pay rise. With ordinary families struggling, can it be acceptable that RBS is planning to pay £400 million in bonuses to top bankers—from a state-owned bank? Is that the Government’s definition of “We’re all in this together”?

Nadhim Zahawi: Anti-business, that’s what you are.

Angela Eagle: I am pro-fairness, not anti-business.
	The House was conveniently in recess when last week’s appalling unemployment figures came out, and when the next figures are due the Prime Minister is out of the country. The Prime Minister runs away from engaging with health critics, he cannot face talking about the economy and he has no solution to the unemployment crisis. So will the Leader of the House now find time for a debate on the economy so the Government can explain their failing economic policies?
	This is a Government led by a Prime Minister who dodges Prime Minister’s questions and a Deputy Prime Minister who spends most of his time attacking the Government of which he is a member. Their disastrous economic policy has resulted in unemployment at its highest level for a generation and their health policy is opposed by just about everyone who works in or cares about the NHS. No wonder recesses cannot come fast enough for the Government.

George Young: I was waiting for the question about the business, but it did not come.
	May I begin by disappointing the hon. Lady? There was no truth in the rumours to which she referred at the beginning of her remarks. I have supported the Health and Social Care Bill publicly and privately and continue to do so. Once again, she asked us to drop the Bill. Does she really want us to drop clauses 22 and 25, which put in law for the first time a duty on the NHS to tackle health inequality? Does she want that dropped? Does she want clause 116 dropped, which will prevent discrimination in favour of private health companies over the NHS and is the first piece of legislation to do so? Does she want to abolish part 1, which is all about integrating health and social care? Does she want to stop local authorities dealing with public health? The Opposition want to stop all sensible reforms and to drop our extra £12.5 billion investment.
	On yesterday’s debate, I am delighted that Liberal Democrat Members of Parliament listened to the argument made by Members on the Government Benches and decided, on reflection, to oppose the Labour party’s motion. I gently remind the hon. Lady that I seem to remember an early-day motion in the last Parliament that was signed by a large number of Back-Bench Labour MPs. When it was debated in the House, they miraculously had the same sort of Pauline conversion and decided to support the Government, so she should be slightly more careful about the examples that she chooses. On the cohesion of the Government, I would
	say that this is a more cohesive Government than the Blair-Brown Government of which she was a member.
	So far as Prime Minister’s questions are concerned, I have checked the figures and can tell the hon. Lady and the House that the number of Prime Minister’s questions per sitting day has risen in this Session compared with the last Session under the previous Administration. I say to the hon. Lady that the current Prime Minister is turning up for Prime Minister’s questions more often than his predecessor. His predecessor—[ Interruption. ]

Mr Speaker: Order. I am glad that the House is in a boisterous but, on the whole, good-natured mood, but I want to hear the answers from the Leader of the House.

George Young: The previous Prime Minister was absent from Prime Minister’s questions twice as often as the current Prime Minister has been and my right hon. Friend, who relishes his performances in the House, has made proportionately more statements to the House than his predecessor and has been at the Dispatch Box for well over 30 hours in so doing.
	So far as the banks are concerned, I remind the hon. Lady that, between 2001 and 2007, bank bonuses went up from £3.1 billion to £11.5 billion at a time when the banks were engaged in irresponsible lending and buying securities that turned out to be worthless. In 2009, the Labour party signed off £1.3 billion-worth of bonuses for Royal Bank of Scotland. That compares with the figure of below £400 million that was approved today, so that was also an unfortunate subject for her to raise.
	Finally, on the economy, the International Monetary Fund has forecast the UK to grow twice as fast as Germany and three times as fast as France this year. After the Budget, we will have four days of debate on the economy, which Government Members look forward to with relish.

William Cash: The Minister for Europe has placed a letter in the House of Commons Library, which is addressed by the permanent representative of the UK representation to the EU to the secretary-general of the Council of the European Union, and raises the question of the legality of the treaty on stability, co-ordination and governance, which was signed on 30 January. It states that the United Kingdom
	“must reserve our position on the proposed treaty and its use of the institutions”.
	In the circumstances, and given that I and others have raised the fact that there are serious questions about the nature and lawfulness of that treaty, and given that the Government appear to share the concerns on that issue, will the Leader of the House agree to have a debate in Government time for at least three hours next week to discuss the nature and lawfulness of that treaty?

George Young: I understand the concern that my hon. Friend has expressed. I have just announced the business for next week and, sadly, there is not an opportunity to raise the specific issue to which he has referred. I cannot guarantee to find time in the near future for his request, but there may be other opportunities for him to raise European business on the Floor of the House as he has done on many occasions in recent weeks.
	Of course, there is also the opportunity of debates in Westminster Hall or through the Backbench Business Committee in this Chamber.

Natascha Engel: Will the Leader of the House take this opportunity to announce to the House that instead of having a pre-recess Adjournment debate on 27 March, the debate will be on assisted dying? Will he also reassure the House that this is going to be an exception rather than a rule? We intend to preserve the pre-recess Adjournment debate but we thought that this issue was of such importance that we wanted to give Members and those outside time to organise for it.

George Young: I am grateful to the hon. Lady. There is no need for me to make the announcement because she has just done so. It is up to the Backbench Business Committee to reconfigure the days that we have allocated to it and there is no obligation on the Committee to adhere to the pattern of days adopted by previous Governments. She has the flexibility and I understand the strength of feeling on both sides of the House regarding the motion she has mentioned. I am sure that a debate on that issue is an intelligent use of time.

Anne Main: Given the number of people who travel abroad for cosmetic operations, may we have a debate on the merit of taking out private insurance to cover the cost of any post-operative care, which people often hope the NHS will pick up at great expense?

George Young: I understand the point that my hon. Friend makes, but I am sure that she would not want to suggest that those who come back to this country, having been let down by treatment overseas, should be denied access to NHS treatment. If she is suggesting that people should insure themselves against such costs, that is a sensible and prudent suggestion, which I am sure my hon. Friends will want to take on board.

Helen Goodman: Will the Leader of the House tell us which Minister is responsible for the north-east region? Across Departments, whether we are talking about Transport, Communities and Local Government or the Department for Work and Pensions—there is a very long list—cuts in the north-east are much deeper than elsewhere. Of course, we can raise these issues individually with Ministers but when can we have a strategic overview of such issues? This has been particularly problematic since the abolition of the Regional Select Committees.

George Young: I am amazed that the hon. Lady mentions the Regional Select Committees which were, frankly, a fiasco. They were poorly attended and that is why we wound them up. There are opportunities for the House to debate regional issues such as London or the south-west in Westminster Hall; that would be an appropriate forum for her to pursue her concerns.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr Speaker: Order. There is huge interest today, which I am keen to accommodate, but if I am to do so I will require brevity, a master class in which will be provided by the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood).

John Redwood: RBS has announced pay increases for investment bankers, big losses and no dividends for taxpayers yet again. May we have an early debate on measures to break the bank up, promote better management and get some money back for taxpayers?

George Young: My right hon. Friend may have an opportunity in the Budget debate to intervene along those lines with his radical suggestions for a fresh approach to RBS.

Dennis Skinner: The Leader of the House may be aware that I have twice raised the issue of wind farms being built in close proximity to people’s homes. In Scotland there is a rule about how close wind farms can be to homes, but the Department I have raised the matter with has refused on both occasions to think about that. If wind farms are so perfect, why are there none in the backyards of the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government? As a bonus, why are there not half a dozen at Highgrove?

George Young: The hon. Gentleman is right that, as the Localism Bill went through Parliament, the Government resisted an embargo on wind farm development within a certain distance from residential units, and we have resisted it subsequently. I will raise his concerns with the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. Whether to approve applications for wind farms at the exciting locations the hon. Gentleman mentions is a matter for the local authorities. I am sure that they would take on board the support for them that he has just enunciated.

Greg Knight: May we have a debate on making better use of our natural resources? Is the Leader of the House aware that later this year the country could be in the ridiculous situation of having some areas suffer drought while others are awash with water? Is it not time we had a national water grid?

George Young: My right hon. Friend will have an opportunity to raise that matter next Thursday. I remind him that in December we published the water White Paper, which sets out a more resilient approach to the water shortages he refers to. Next Wednesday we will debate a Bill that will enable investment in water infrastructure, particularly in London, in order to improve the quality of water and the reliability of supply.

David Winnick: With regard to the Health and Social Care Bill and future debates, is the Leader of the House aware that watching the Prime Minister trying to defend the Bill yesterday reminded some of us who were present at the time of Mrs Thatcher, as she then was, trying to defend the poll tax?

George Young: No, and I say that as someone who opposed the poll tax but happens to support the Health and Social Care Bill.

Sarah Newton: We should heed the words of the Institute of Directors, which today urged us to stop the gloom and doom about the economy. As confidence is so important to economic revival, will my right hon. Friend ask the Chancellor to make a statement on the really positive parts of our economy, such as agriculture, food and drink in Cornwall, which delivers more than 30% of local employment?

George Young: My hon. Friend is right to sound a note of optimism and remind us of the e-mail from the Institute of Directors, which I received just before I came in, cautioning against doom and gloom, and I am delighted to hear about what is happening in her constituency. The recovery that we all want to see will be assisted by the retention of low borrowing costs, and our whole economic strategy is engaged on ensuring that that remains the case to underpin investment and take the pressure off household incomes.

Gerald Kaufman: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen early-day motion 2742, which I and a number of other hon. Members have signed?
	[ That this House condemns the illegal and oppressive employment practices of Impact Security Solutions in Ormskirk and in particular its abrupt dismissal of a constituent of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton in violation of his contract of employment and despite his alleged conduct having been committed by other employees, against whom no action has been taken; condemns, further, the foul language used against this employee by a member of management, together with the bullying and pressure inflicted on him; calls on Impact Security Solutions immediately to reinstate this employee with full recompense for lost pay; further calls on the Secretary of State for Work and Pensi ons to investigate this company’ s employment practices; and further calls on the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills to investigate the validity of the business practices of this  company . ]
	The motion relates to the employment practices of Impact Security Solutions, a disgraceful firm that has been victimising a constituent of mine oppressively and illegally. Will the right hon. Gentleman condemn this disgraceful company and ask the Secretaries of State for Work and Pensions and for Business, Innovation and Skills to investigate its activities to see whether it is behaving lawfully in any way?

George Young: I understand the right hon. Gentleman’s concern. I do not know whether this relates to the point of order he raised earlier in the week, which I was in my place to hear. Of course, I condemn harassment, victimisation and illegal activity wherever it occurs and will certainly draw his remarks to the attention of my ministerial colleagues and invite them to reply.

Bob Russell: May we have a debate on the Olympics, not on sporting matters, but on other matters related to the games, including the souvenirs, a large number of which are being sourced overseas? There are reports that the opening and closing ceremonies will exclude the traditional folk culture of the nations and the regions. Also, the railway line between Stratford
	and Liverpool Street station is in a state of dereliction, as I have informed the Leader of the House before, and is a negative showcase. An overarching approach is needed. Otherwise, this will be very negative for visitors to this country.

George Young: If I understand my hon. Friend’s bid, he wants the opening ceremony of the Olympics to make specific reference to Colchester and its culture. Was that the thrust of his remarks? In which case, I say to him that we could all make similar bids on behalf of our constituencies. I am sure that the opening ceremony will do justice to the whole country, including Colchester, and that when he sees it he will be delighted.

Luciana Berger: My constituent, Jacqueline Smith, a mother of three, received a letter from the Department for Work and Pensions informing her that she must increase her weekly work hours from 16 to 24 or lose her working tax credits, which are worth £3,000 a year. Her husband is unable to work because he is the full-time carer of his elderly mother. Alongside her husband’s carer’s allowance of £55 a week, Jacqueline’s wages and working tax credits are what her family depend on. Her employer is simply unable to offer the increase in hours that she needs to keep her working tax credits. May we please have an urgent debate on why the Government are punishing families such as Jacqueline’s, who are doing the decent thing and looking after elderly relatives, by cutting their tax credits?

George Young: I understand that the hon. Lady raised a comparable issue a few moments ago in Women and Equalities questions. I hope that she will have an opportunity to raise this matter at the next Work and Pensions questions. It is our intention to help the Jacqueline Smiths of this world. For example, we have made changes to eligibility for child care for working women and introduced a number of other measures to help people in that position. However, I will make some inquiries about that specific case and ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to write to the hon. Lady.

Bernard Jenkin: May I point out to my right hon. Friend that the debate requested by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) on the non-EU treaty is urgent for next week, because the final text of the treaty will be agreed at an EU summit at the end of next week? Unless we have the debate next week, its purpose will be rather less.

George Young: I am sorry to give my hon. Friend a disappointing response, but it is the same one I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash). The Government are not planning to have a debate on the matter next week, and I would be misleading him if I said that I will plan the timetable in order to facilitate it.

Barry Sheerman: I am sure that the Leader of the House agrees that, with leadership, determination and imagination, we could do something about the scandal of youth unemployment. I mean young people at 16, post-16, post-18 and the scandal of young unemployed graduates. Surely the House, on a cross-party basis, could do something in a debate that could lead to action on this national scandal.

George Young: I agree that the qualities to which the hon. Gentleman refers can make an impact. We have actually had debates on youth unemployment, and I pay credit to the Opposition for choosing them for some of their Supply day debates. He will know that the Work programme is helping over 3 million people. We recently introduced the youth contract, wage incentives for 160,000 jobs, and 250,000 extra work experience places to help those aged between 18 and 21. All those measures are offering better value than the future jobs fund. I would welcome further opportunities to debate these issues, perhaps in the context of the Budget.

Therese Coffey: I am sure that you, Mr Speaker, will be aware of the Government’s efforts to promote exports, and no industry is better at doing that than the music industry. Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating Adele on winning her Grammy awards and call for an urgent debate on how music contributes to our great export growth?

George Young: I join my hon. Friend in congratulating Adele on her many achievements and share her disappointment that Adele’s speech was cut short by those she called “the suits”. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the music industry is an important export industry and that we should do what we can to encourage it. I will take her intervention as a bid for appropriate assistance from the Chancellor of the Exchequer as he prepares his Budget.

Mr Speaker: Members keep commenting on the fact that the hon. Lady was there, but in fairness it ought to be pointed out that she is a member of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, if memory serves me correctly, so it is not a particularly staggering revelation that the House has just been given.

Stewart Hosie: At Prime Minister’s questions yesterday, in response to a question from the hon. Member for Dundee West (Jim McGovern) about the Royal Marine Reserve headquarters in Dundee, the Prime Minister said that
	“there is no intention to cut the number of Royal Marine reservists in Scotland. Indeed…we actually need more people to join the reserves.”—[Official Report, 22 February 2012; Vol. 540, c. 873.]
	The facts rather contradict that, however. The Greenock and Inverness detachments have been shut, and we understand that the intention is to cull the number of regulars who serve in the Royal Marine Reserve. Given the difficulty and the confusion, may we have a statement from the Secretary of State for Defence specifically on the Royal Marine and Royal Naval Reserves so that the Government’s intentions are clear?

George Young: I understand the hon. Gentleman’s concern and was in the Chamber during that exchange. I shall certainly ask the Secretary of State for Defence to reply to him and to respond to the issue that he has raised, although I start from the premise that what the Prime Minister says is always right.

Margot James: Given the view of the late and much lamented journalist, Marie Colvin, that the outrageous atrocities being committed by the Assad regime on its own people were among the worst that she had seen in her long and distinguished career as
	a war correspondent, allied to the position of the US, which is now considering additional measures, may we have a debate about Syria? Would that be possible?

George Young: I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to Marie Colvin, who went to the most dangerous places in the world to expose the most appalling regimes and to describe what was happening to ordinary people, who were the victims of those regimes. It is a tragic loss, and we send our sympathy to her relatives and friends.
	My hon. Friend may have listened to the exchange with my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on the “Today” programme, when he outlined the approach that we are taking to Syria, the conference that is taking place in Tunis tomorrow, the stepping-up of emergency aid for Homs and other cities, the shaping of new sanctions to cut off funding to the military regime and the supporting of the Syrian opposition to set out a credible and inclusive alternative political vision. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will want to keep the House informed as to progress.

Julie Hilling: I was really heartened three weeks ago when the Leader of the House told me that he wanted to support an international women’s day debate, but I am really disappointed today that he has not announced one. Please may we have a debate on 8 March, on international women’s day, about women?

George Young: I am sorry that the brief moment of optimism in the hon. Lady’s life has been shattered, but the responsibility for choosing the subjects on the dates that are allocated to the Backbench Business Committee rests with the Backbench Business Committee. It is no longer a matter for the Government to find time for a debate on international women’s day; that responsibility has been transferred to the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel) and the Committee. It has total responsibility for choosing the subjects for debate on international women’s day.

Martin Vickers: In little more than two months, voters in some of our major cities will have the opportunity to vote in referendums on whether to have an elected mayor. Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate so that those of us who favour such a move can argue the case, and the case for extending the role of elected mayors and allowing electors elsewhere to trigger referendums?

George Young: I cannot offer an opportunity for an immediate debate, but there has been an opportunity, as the relevant orders have passed through the House, for hon. Members to participate if not in the Chamber, then elsewhere. I am a keen supporter of elected mayors. I hope that where referendums take place people will support them, and I am heartened by the support of my hon. Friend for this innovation.

Keith Vaz: Given that William Hill is now offering odds of 5:4 on the first child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge being born in 2012, what progress has been made in respect of a royal succession Bill? As the Leader of the House knows, I offered my ten-minute rule Bill as the vehicle for the change agreed by the Prime Minister at the Commonwealth Heads of Government conference. When will such legislation come before the House?

George Young: I confess to the right hon. Gentleman that I have not been following the odds quite as closely as he has. He did introduce a private Member’s Bill, and I understand that the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), at the Department with responsibility for political and constitutional reform, wrote to him explaining why, sadly, we could not use his Bill as a vehicle for the royal succession Bill. But it is on the Government’s agenda, and we will make announcements in due course.

Peter Bone: I do not know whether the Leader of the House is having a bad day or what, but he suggested that the Backbench Business Committee has not awarded 8 March to a debate about international women’s day. The problem is that the Committee has been given no further days for such awards, so to suggest that we have not awarded a debate to a day that we have not been given is slightly misleading—[Hon. Members: “Oh!”] Not misleading in any way whatsoever, just difficult to understand.

Mr Speaker: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that it is slightly incorrect?

Peter Bone: Slightly incorrect, so I wonder whether the Leader of the House will correct that position.

George Young: The Government have undertaken to allocate roughly one day per week to the Backbench Business Committee. If we look at the allocations since the first debate that the Committee arranged, we find that we have allocated 0.97 days per week, so it is not the case that the Government are not honouring their obligation to the Committee, and we hope to go on offering days to it for the remainder of the Session. It is up to the Committee then to decide what to do with the days that are allocated.

Tom Blenkinsop: My constituent Mike Allen has devised and successfully sold his patented portable snow and ice-clearing system, a de-icing unit called Thaw-Tec, to Network Rail, Eurotunnel and Asda, but Network Rail is now trying to copy his design. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Prime Minister are aware of that, but may we have a debate on the Floor of the House about the importance of patented designs to small and medium-sized enterprises, and their protection? [ Interruption. ]

George Young: My hon. Friends behind me say that what is needed is a good lawyer, and a number of them may be offering their services. I say seriously to the hon. Gentleman, however, that of course I will pursue the dialogue that he has mentioned with my ministerial colleagues, but it might be the subject for an Adjournment debate or a debate in Westminster Hall.

David Davies: May we have a debate about the practice of directory services companies that divert people from the numbers that they have requested, as I found out when I dialled 118 118 the other day to ask for the excellent Heads of the Valleys driver training school in Gilwern, where I passed my HGV test 20 years ago, and was told to ring the AA instead?

George Young: There are some questions that I am asked at business questions to which a response is almost impossible. I am sorry to hear of my hon. Friend’s experience, and I will contact whichever Minister has responsibility, possibly somebody at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, and ask them to write to him rather than to ring him up.

David Hanson: May we have an early debate about the health of the high street? The Leader of the House will know that yesterday Peacocks announced the closure of 244 stores, including the one in Flint in my constituency. That will lead not only to 3,100 job losses, but to a big hole in the high street. We need to reflect on how we can promote the health of the high street.

George Young: There was a debate—designated, I think, by the Backbench Business Committee—about the Mary Portas review. The Government take the issue seriously, and in the spring we will set out our response to the review.

Greg Mulholland: May we have a statement from the Ministry of Justice, following the extraordinary and absurd case whereby David Friesner was allowed to carry on practising and defending in criminal trials, despite having been convicted of an imprisonable offence? He is now in prison for three years. So far we have not had a statement, and the Bar Standards Board says that the process is not acceptable. May we have a statement to ensure that the loophole is closed and we never again have a criminal representing a criminal?

George Young: There will be an opportunity for the hon. Gentleman to raise the issue at Ministry of Justice questions next Tuesday. If he has not tabled a question, he might like to take his chance at topical questions. I am sure, Mr Speaker, that you have noticed his interest.

Diana Johnson: Does today’s announcement that the Royal Navy is buying vessels from South Korea give us a chance to have a debate about the Government’s policy on defence procurement in the light of the written statement on defence that was produced without any opportunity to question Ministers on their decision not to give priority to British manufacturing?

George Young: I may have inadvertently misled the House, Mr Speaker, by saying that MOJ questions are next Tuesday; I understand that they are not.
	Set-piece debates on defence procurement happened in the previous Parliament. Days for such debates are now allocated by the Backbench Business Committee. Bids for debates on defence procurement are therefore a matter for that Committee, and I am sure that the Chairman has noted the hon. Lady’s bid.

Rob Wilson: The Leader of the House will be aware that the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), has written to journalist Polly Toynbee about her backing of a militant campaign to destroy the work experience
	programme. May we have a debate about why work experience is important and why backing trendy left-wing causes and destroying jobs is not?

George Young: I agree with my hon. Friend and commend the forthright way in which he said that. The introduction of the new work experience scheme, focused on 18 to 21-year-olds, offers them work experience and the ability to retain their benefits, which they could not do for as long a period before. That is an opportunity—a voluntary opportunity—for young people, and the initial evidence is that 51% subsequently come off benefits, so it is a good use of their time. I commend the employers who have offered the scheme, as well as Tesco, which has a parallel scheme that offers four weeks’ paid employment and then an opportunity for a job through an interview. It is wrong to decry these initiatives; we need more of them, not fewer.

Iain Wright: Statistics published last week revealed that 4,633 people in Hartlepool are unemployed—the figure is up month on month and year on year—and that the proportion of unemployed people in the north-east is the highest in any region. Government policy is not helping; in fact, it is making matters much worse. May we therefore have an urgent debate about unemployment in the north-east?

George Young: I would deny that Government policies are making the situation worse. I believe that the retention of low interest rates is in the best interests of creating jobs in the hon. Gentleman’s area. Unemployment is too high, but if he looks at the latest figures, he will see that an extra 60,000 people are in work in the last quarter, the number of those in long-term unemployment has fallen, and the number of vacancies has begun to increase. I am not sure that the picture is quite as dismal as he painted it.

Nadhim Zahawi: Last Friday, I was privileged to attend the inaugural Pride of Stratford awards, which bring businesses, charities and citizens together to celebrate their work for the economy and for the community. Considering that business nationally invested £119 billion last year—£3 billion more than the previous year—may we have a debate about business working with the community so that at least Government Members can send out the message that we are pro-business and not anti-capitalism?

George Young: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and interested to hear about the Pride of Stratford initiative, which I am sure should be replicated throughout the country. He is right to point to the good news in many parts of the country, with people responding to the initiatives that the Government have taken through the national loans guarantee, the enterprise zones and the regional growth fund. I welcome any debate, perhaps in the context of the Budget, so that we can take this agenda forward.

Kevin Brennan: On the business of the missing end-of-term Wednesdays, Members in all parts of the House find it useful to be able to question the Prime Minister. If the Leader of the House cannot
	find Government business to fill the time on those Wednesdays, could we arrange to do what is sometimes done on the last day of term in school, with Members bringing in board games, or perhaps the Leader of the House showing a video or leading a nature walk in Victoria gardens, to fill in the time until the appointed hour for Prime Minister’s Questions?

George Young: There is a motion on the Order Paper that requires the House to sit through an extra day, so it is not the case that the House is being prevented from meeting. As I said in response to an earlier question, the ratio of PMQs to sitting days has gone up during this Parliament as compared with the previous one.

Tony Baldry: May we have a debate in Government time to discuss the work of the Backbench Business Committee? Given that so many of the requests to the Leader of the House appear now to be the responsibility of the Backbench Business Committee, a lot of us—even those of us who have been around for some time—find it quite confusing as to what are the responsibilities of the Backbench Business Committee and what are the responsibilities of the Leader of the House. As the shadow Leader of the House now asks the Leader of the House no questions about next week’s business, perhaps we could skip this session and cut out the party political broadcast that she makes each week, and get the Chairman of the Backbench Business Committee here so that we could ask her some questions about what her Committee can do to allocate time for the debates that we would like.

George Young: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It would be up to the Backbench Business Committee to find time for a debate on the Backbench Business Committee. On his serious point, we have made a commitment that by the third year of this Parliament we will move towards a House business committee to seek to integrate the work that is done by the Backbench Business Committee with what I do as Leader of the House. There may then be an opportunity for a duet, if that is the right word, between me and whoever has responsibility for the Backbench Business Committee. These matters are still to be resolved. If my hon. Friend looks at the coalition agreement, he will see that the current arrangements are interim arrangements,.

Denis MacShane: A year ago in the House, Mr Speaker, you granted me an urgent question on what was happening in Bahrain. The House will be shocked to learn that we are still exporting arms to that country despite the awful repression there, which has not much ceased. Tear gas is being thrown into homes to terrorise people, and there are no human rights advances. It is a very shocking situation, even overshadowed as it is by Syria, and yet we have resumed our arms exports. May we have a debate on why we are selling arms to regimes in any part of that region where despotic rulers are still repressing their peoples?

George Young: I understand the right hon. Gentleman’s concern. There will be Foreign and Commonwealth questions on Tuesday 28 February, and that might be an opportunity for him to raise this serious matter with the Foreign Secretary.

Karen Bradley: Over the recess, I was fortunate to visit Adams Foods in Leek, where I met the first five young people taking part in its new apprenticeships scheme, which is giving them an opportunity to find long-term sustainable work that they would not otherwise have had. Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on how other companies might help young people in this way, and how Government policies might help them?

George Young: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and commend the initiatives that she has been taking in her constituency. I would welcome a debate to talk about the Work programme, which is helping 3 million people, together with a massive increase in apprenticeships, which number over 400,000 this year. I applaud the work that is taking place in her constituency to reduce the number of young people who are out of work.

Andrew Love: This morning the Royal Bank of Scotland announced a pre-tax loss of £766 million and, at the same time, announced a bonus pool of exactly the same amount. In explanation, it tells us that the bonus pool has been cut in half, but my understanding from reports in the Financial Times is that that is being made up for by increases in people’s fixed salaries. This whole announcement takes place against a backdrop of thousands of redundancies up and down the country. For reasons very different from those of the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood), may I ask for an early debate on RBS, the banking system, and banking bonuses?

George Young: The Financial Services Bill, which is going through the House, sets up a new financial structure for regulating the banks. There may be an opportunity to have the debate that the hon. Gentleman requests when the Bill comes back to the Floor of the House. I gently make the point that the party that he supports took no action at all to control bonuses when it was in government.

Karen Lumley: On Monday, I attended the opening of a new swimming pool and leisure centre in Redditch that is partly heated by the local crematorium—an innovative scheme that is saving the taxpayer £14,500 a year by not putting heat out into the atmosphere. Will the Leader of the House congratulate Redditch borough council on this innovative scheme and find time for a debate when we can discuss how other groundbreaking schemes can be used across the country?

George Young: I will die a happier man if the heat generated by my cremation can increase the temperature of any nearby swimming pool. On the point that my hon. Friend makes, the Government are aware of the scheme. The Department of Energy and Climate Change will shortly publish its heat strategy, which will explore the potential for better recovery and reuse of wasted heat, using such schemes. I pay tribute to the groundbreaking scheme in her constituency.

Madeleine Moon: The Richards brothers run a small service station in Cefn Glas in my constituency. They employ no other staff. At the back of the service station, they have a private office that is
	clearly labelled as such, in which they have a television set. Bizarrely, despite being told by the local authority that they do not need to have a Performing Right Society licence, they have been approached by an organisation called PPL, which claims that they need one of its licences because of the possibility that a member of the public may hear music from an advert on entering the service station. They have no option but to pay the licence fee. They face a double fine if they fail to do so within 28 days. An accountant, a justice of the peace and a solicitor have confirmed that it is not a public place. Can we have a debate on what defines a public place and on how PPL is allowed to enforce such licences and fines on organisations?

George Young: I am sure that many Members have been approached by constituents with exactly the problem that the hon. Lady outlines and are being asked for payment in circumstances in which they do not believe it is payable. The regime was introduced by the previous Government—I say that as a matter of fact, rather than to score a cheap point. I will draw the matter to the attention of Ministers at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, because we are anxious to deregulate and this seems to be a regulation that it is worth reviewing.

John Glen: Will the Leader of the House make time for a statement by the Ministry of Defence on the disposal of the former land forces headquarters at Wilton? Will he urge it to take account of the strong opinions of the Wilton eco-park development community association, so that if its bid is financially viable, the support of local constituents will be taken into account when the decision is made?

George Young: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. His constituency is very close to mine and I am aware of the importance of this issue. The Ministry of Defence is in the process of disposing of the site and bidding is in progress. Any compliant bid, including a bid from the organisation to which he has referred, will of course be considered. The MOD, like other Departments, will have an eye on getting the best value for money for the taxpayer.

Jonathan Reynolds: Can we have a debate on what is and is not grounds for banning an organisation that wishes to make a protest march in an area? This Saturday, members of the English Defence League intend to hold a march through Hyde town centre, despite it having no connection to the issues that it is purporting to march in support of and despite there being a history of violence wherever it has been. Should not decent, law-abiding citizens from all backgrounds be protected from this unnecessary and unwanted activity?

George Young: Of course, I understand the hon. Gentleman’s concern. My understanding is that the Home Secretary has the power in certain circumstances to ban demonstrations and marches. I will draw his remarks to her attention, in view of the serious issue that he has raised.

Glyn Davies: All Members who represent Welsh constituencies will have been delighted to hear that we are to have a debate on Welsh affairs on St David’s day, after much uncertainty about whether
	such a debate would take place. Will the Leader of the House consider how this debate can become an accepted part of House business to remove that uncertainty in future?

George Young: I understand my hon. Friend’s concern, but what he suggests would go against the thrust of the Wright Committee reforms, whereby the St David’s day debate and other set-piece debates were handed over to the Backbench Business Committee to give it—

Thomas Docherty: There we go!

George Young: It is all very well the hon. Gentleman saying that, but this Government have done something that no other Government have ever done, which is to give Back Benchers the right to set the agenda of the House. He should be careful about grumbling about that.
	It is now a matter for the Backbench Business Committee to weigh the priority of the St David’s day debate against other debates that Members bid to hold on the same day.

Dominic Raab: The Baker review into extradition was published in October. Four months on, the publication of all its evidence has been blocked by Home Office officials with no explanation. Having tried all the usual channels, I ask the Leader of the House to convey to Ministers the risk that that lack of transparency will undermine the ostensible independence of the review and parliamentary scrutiny? It risks, however unfairly, creating the perception that there is something to hide in the evidence.

George Young: My hon. Friend rightly refers to the Scott Baker review, which was published in October. It is a substantial document. There have been a number of debates in the House subsequently on the issues that it deals with, thanks to the Backbench Business Committee. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is reviewing the Scott Baker report, together with the views that hon. Members have expressed in those debates. I will bring to her attention the specific issue that my hon. Friend has raised about the non-publication of certain documents that are in the Home Office’s possession.

Gavin Barwell: The Leader of the House has alluded to the fact that UK borrowing costs are at a record low. May I support the request of the shadow Leader of the House for a debate on the economy, so that we can discuss what those borrowing costs tell us about the market’s confidence in this Government’s economic policies, compared with those of the previous Government?

George Young: We would relish such a debate. It would allow us to discuss the low interest rates that this country enjoys, which I think would be prejudiced were we to listen to the siren voices of the Opposition, who are asking us to relax the fairly tight fiscal stance that we have adopted. I very much hope that my hon. Friend’s wish will be granted in the context of the
	Budget, when there will be four days of debate. I hope that we will hear from Opposition Members an alternative and more convincing strategy than we have heard from them so far.

Neil Carmichael: Given that 500,000 jobs have been created in the private sector since the general election, many of them in manufacturing according to my experience in my constituency, can we please have a debate on the link between sound education policy and the ability of manufacturing to recruit and develop the right people to continue that progress?

George Young: I very much hope that our higher education reforms will increase the linkage between what happens in our schools and universities and the requirements of manufacturing. By having a scheme of portability, by which the money follows the student and in which the student is anxious to get a job, I am sure that we will get the linkage to which my hon. Friend refers.

Andrew Stephenson: As part of national apprenticeship week, I visited Company Fuel Cards, which is a fast-growing new company based in Barrowford in my constituency. The company used to subcontract work abroad but has now set up an apprenticeship academy, working closely with Nelson and Colne college. That is a classic example of what the Government are trying to achieve. Can we have a debate on growth and on how we can further support companies that want to take on apprentices?

Hon. Members: What growth?

George Young: Opposition Members should look at the forecasts of the Office for Budget Responsibility and the International Monetary Fund, which forecast growth this year at a higher rate than many of our competitor countries.
	I say to my hon. Friend that we all have a responsibility as MPs to draw to the attention of employers in our constituencies the benefits of the apprenticeship scheme and to encourage them to take it up. There are worthwhile benefits not just for the companies, but for young people. I am delighted to hear of the scheme in his constituency, whereby work that was outsourced is now being done in-house. I am sure that we all want to see that replicated in other constituencies.

Andrew Selous: May we please have an urgent debate on current employment law? I learned yesterday that a number of my constituents have been sacked in a form a collective punishment because some money went missing from their employer, who was unable to identify who had taken the money, if indeed it had been taken. Although I completely back the need for employers to have honest employees, I do not like collective punishments, even for schoolchildren. I find it unacceptable that employees might never work again because a group punishment has been imposed on them in that way.

George Young: I recall, as I am sure do other hon. Members, a form of collective punishment at school, whereby the whole class was detained because somebody had misbehaved and remained anonymous. [ Interruption. ]
	The hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) clearly went to a school of well-behaved pupils. I understand the sense of injustice to which my hon. Friend has referred. I will take this matter up with Ministers to see whether, in this day and age, that form of collective and indiscriminate punishment is still appropriate.

Brian Binley: The Leader of the House may be aware of suggestions that there was a deal surrounding the recent appointment of Professor Ebdon, which was supposedly brokered before the Select Committee on Business, Innovation and Skills had an opportunity to determine its view. If true, that is a grave matter. Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on this issue so that we can obtain clarity and dispel the rumours of inappropriate ministerial behaviour and serious disrespect of the House?

George Young: The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills made a statement about that on Monday and subsequently answered questions. He made it clear that he took seriously the view of the majority of the Select Committee, then reviewed the matter, decided that no new factors had been raised and went ahead with the appointment. It was a collective appointment, with the support of the Prime Minister. I hesitate to say this, but there may be an opportunity to debate the Committee’s report at some point if the Backbench Business Committee so decides. I hope that my hon. Friend listened to the exchange on Monday and to the responses that were given, which I found reassuring.

Christopher Pincher: Job clubs such as the newly established Wilnecote job club in Tamworth provide tremendous support to young people and the long-term unemployed, helping them take advantage of the half a million new jobs that have been created in the private sector since 2010. May we have a debate on job clubs to explore and encourage their excellent work?

George Young: I am delighted to hear of the job club in my hon. Friend’s constituency. I have one in Andover, which I recently visited. They are very worthwhile organisations, giving mutual support, raising morale and providing help on applying for vacancies. As I said a few moments ago, the last quarter’s figures showed an increase in the number of vacancies. I would welcome such a debate, which might be best placed in the context of the four-day debate on the Budget.

Brandon Lewis: Palmers department store in Great Yarmouth is celebrating its 175th anniversary this year. It is a great example of a small or medium-sized enterprise and family business in the retail sector that is doing well and growing. With that in mind, may we have a debate to consider what more the Government can do to cut red tape and bureaucracy, to let such companies in the retail sector, which are often SMEs, grow and create even more jobs?

George Young: I welcome what my hon. Friend says and I am delighted to hear what is happening in his constituency. We are scrapping new regulations that would have cost businesses more than £350 million a year and doubling the qualification period for unfair dismissal tribunals, and we have streamlined the planning
	system. I very much hope that we can take that agenda forward, and again, a debate might be appropriate in the context of the Budget.

James Morris: I recently visited Sandvik in my constituency, which told me that demand for tools from the automotive industry in the west midlands is the highest it has been for many years. May we have a debate in Government time on what the Government are doing to support advanced manufacturing, in order to promote the jobs and growth that we need in areas such as the west midlands and the black country?

George Young: My hon. Friend draws attention to the success of the automotive industry, particularly in exports. It is indeed part of our strategy to rebalance the economy, making it less dependent on financial services and more dependent on manufacturing. We are addressing the barriers to growth and encouraging innovation, exports, business investment and improving skills, and we have the regional growth fund, the enterprise zones and the national loan guarantee scheme. I hope that we can develop that policy in the context of the Budget and outline yet further help for the manufacturing industry.

Philip Hollobone: According to the lovely people in the Table Office, who always work so diligently on our behalf, every week an average of between 60 and 70 Members put in an application for a Westminster Hall or Adjournment debate. Some weeks that number can be as high as 150, and it never falls below 40. Given that evidence, whenever a day’s sitting in Westminster Hall is cancelled for understandable reasons, should not the Leader of the House make provision for an alternative day to be substituted, so that Members do not lose an opportunity to hold the Government to account?

George Young: I understand where my hon. Friend is coming from, but I make the point that this Parliament is sitting for as many days a year as previous Parliaments, sometimes more, so it is not the case that we are not allowing Parliament to hold us to account. On his specific question, there is a motion on the Order Paper for later today to which he has tabled amendments, and my hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House will give a coherent and compelling response to those amendments in due course.

Henry Smith: Earlier this month, during the freezing weather, a number of constituents came to me having recently had British Gas central heating systems installed, concerned that the company was not willing to come out to repair them when they broke. May we have a debate on how the large utility companies, particularly British Gas, treat their customers?

George Young: I understand my hon. Friend’s concern, and he may like to contact Consumer Direct for advice and information. Some benefits are available under the Sale of Goods Act 1979 and the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982, but I will of course draw the problem that he mentions to the attention of my
	ministerial colleagues at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, who are responsible for consumer policy.

Andrew Bridgen: May we have an urgent debate about the effectiveness and value for money of local policing? In my constituency, recorded crime has fallen by 4.8% over the past 12 months and antisocial behaviour by 25%, all within the framework of a very challenging financial settlement forced on us by the legacy of debt that we inherited from the Labour Government. Such a debate would also provide a great opportunity to explode the myth still going around that the only way to improve public services is by throwing ever more taxpayers’ money at them.

George Young: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We debated the police grant a few days ago, which would have given him an opportunity to raise the matter. I am delighted to hear of the reduction in crime in his constituency, which shows what can be achieved within challenging financial targets. We have slashed bureaucracy, saved up to £200 million through national procurement and made the police more accountable to the public, and we are moving towards the first elected police and crime commissioners. I am delighted to hear of the good results in his constituency.

Dawn Primarolo: Thank you very much, Leader of the House. I think the House will be interested to know that 51 Members participated in business questions today.

Pensions and Social Security

Dawn Primarolo: I understand that for the convenience of the House, motions 1 to 3 are to be taken together.

Steve Webb: I beg to move,
	That the draft Pensions Act 2008 (Abolition of Protected Rights) (Consequential Amendments) (No. 2) (Amendment) Order 2012, which was laid before this House on 30 January, be approved.

Dawn Primarolo: With this we shall take the following motions, on pensions and on social security:
	That the draft Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2012, which was laid before this House on 30 January, be approved.
	That the draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2012, which was laid before this House on 30 January, be approved.

Steve Webb: The draft Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2012 provides for contracted-out defined-benefit schemes to increase their members’ guaranteed minimum pensions that accrued between 1988 and 1997 by 3%. Increases are capped at that level when price inflation exceeds 3%. That, of course, is an entirely technical matter that we attend to on an annual basis, and not something that I imagine we shall need to dwell on today.
	The second, smaller draft order comes about for a sequence of reasons. The Pensions Acts 2007 and 2008 gave the Government the power to abolish contracting out on a defined-contribution basis. A written ministerial statement set the point of abolition as 6 April 2012. In June 2011, the House debated and approved the Pensions Act 2008 (Abolition of Protected Rights) (Consequential Amendments) (No. 2) Order 2011, which makes consequential amendments to primary legislation, consistent with the abolition of defined-contribution contracting out. At the time of that debate, a minor defect in the operation of article 3 of the 2011 draft order came to light. I therefore made it clear to the House that I would return with a further amending order before the 2011 order came into force.
	Accordingly, the Pensions Act 2008 (Abolition of Protected Rights) (Consequential Amendments) (No. 2) Order 2012 will remove the exclusion of protected rights payments from what counts as income for the purposes of income payments orders made under section 310 of the Insolvency Act 1986, and from the scope of section 159 of the Pension Schemes Act 1993, which provides that guaranteed minimum pensions and protected rights payments cannot be assigned or charged. The draft order will bring consistency with our original policy intention, namely that the tracking of protected rights should cease after the abolition of defined-contribution contracting out.

Oliver Heald: Does my hon. Friend not think that it is really rather a tribute to his work that the orders are so non-controversial that there is not a single Opposition Back Bencher in the Chamber to discuss the uprating of all the benefits that this country has? I pay tribute to him and congratulate him on that stunning achievement, which I do not think has ever been replicated.

Steve Webb: I am most grateful, although my initial oratory has already drawn one hon. Member into the House. If I keep going for long enough, who knows? My hon. Friend is right to pay tribute to the coalition for finding the money to protect the most vulnerable households at a time of economic stringency. He can share in that credit.
	On the principal order—the draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2012—despite that challenging economic landscape, the coalition is committed to protecting people who have worked hard all their lives, poorer pensioners, people who are not able to work through their disabilities, and people who, through no fault of their own, have lost their jobs and are trying to find work. Those are important aims for uprating 2012, which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made clear in his autumn statement on 29 November, Official Report, column 802.

David Ruffley: Has the Minister had any representations regarding the apparent iniquity of uprating by CPI on the basis of one month’s figures—those for September?

Steve Webb: My hon. Friend is right that when the uprating was considered, there was speculation that a different month, or a rolling average or something like that, might be used. It was decided to continue the practice of using the September CPI, but I would stress that that is not a one-month figure, but a figure published in one month about the past 12 months. Although as it happened 5.2% was the peak—I think I am right in saying that it was lower in the month before and the month after—each 12 months joins on to another 12 months, so in another year, the September figure could be the lowest. We took the view that that was the established practice, and that changing it could leave it open to manipulation. Although in a particular year it can stand out, when we take one year with the next, it will sometimes be lower and sometimes higher.
	As hon. Members know, using the CPI measure of inflation was an important part of this Government’s plans for uprating pensions and benefits. I am delighted that we will have a debate on that very subject next Thursday afternoon—I look forward to being here at the same time and the same place next week. In addition to being the headline measure of inflation in the UK and the internationally recognised target measure of inflation used by the Bank of England, we believe the CPI is a superior measure of inflation when it comes to uprating benefits and pensions, first because the CPI basket of goods is a better match for the spending patterns of pensioners, and secondly because it takes better account of how households respond to price changes.
	Last year, the High Court upheld the Government’s decision that the CPI can be used for pensions and benefits uprating and we have robustly defended our case in the Court of Appeal.

Stephen Timms: As the Minister knows, the UK Statistics Authority has said that CPI should be used for that purpose only if it incorporates a measure of housing costs. I know some work is being done to incorporate such costs in the CPI measure, but is it the Government’s intention to use that modified measure when it is available?

Steve Webb: The right hon. Gentleman rightly says that the consumer prices advisory committee is looking at how owner-occupiers’ housing costs can be included in CPI—as he will appreciate, rent is already included in CPI. The committee has rejected the retail prices index approach in respect of mortgage interest and is looking at a range of alternatives. I understand that it is due to report in early 2013. I have said consistently that we will look at what it comes up with. Each year, as he knows, the Secretary of State must take a view on the general increase in prices, and will certainly have regard to the work of the committee in doing so.

Eilidh Whiteford: I am grateful to the Minister for addressing one issue that I wanted to raise with him, but I am also concerned that pensioners’ and disabled people’s experience of inflation is dependent on their heating costs, which was one of the main drivers of inflation last year. My concern is that CPI is not a good measure of people’s experience of inflation, because those people experience higher inflation than the rest of us, who go out during the day.

Steve Webb: The hon. Lady is right that any single inflation measure will not capture the full diversity of circumstances, which I accept. One of the main differences between RPI and CPI is that RPI includes mortgage interest, which is largely irrelevant to most pensioners. By excluding mortgage interest from its basket of goods, the CPI gives more weight to the things on which pensioners spend their money. Other things being equal, CPI will therefore tend to be a better fit with the spending patterns of pensioners.
	The hon. Lady is right that rising fuel prices are an important issue. That is one reason why instead of simply doing our legal duty by the poorest pensioners, which was to uprate the pension credit by earnings only, which was 2.8%, we chose to do a full pass-through of the £5.30 basic state pension rise to the poorest pensioner on pension credit precisely because they have faced the pressures she describes. We are aware of that point and have sought to do something in this uprating measure to address it.

Oliver Heald: I am grateful to the Minister for being so generous with his time. Does he agree that some quite significant changes are taking place in the hierarchy of indexes that can be used for uprating? For example, earnings, which was always thought to be by far the highest measure, is at the moment the lowest measure. In addition, changes in the housing market have affected the CPI and RPI differential. It is therefore a moving picture. It is not as straightforward as saying, “History tells the whole story.”

Steve Webb: My hon. Friend is right. I noticed in the most recent figures that the gap between CPI and RPI was just 0.3%. That is historically low, but the numbers and relative values change a great deal. That is why our triple lock says of the basic state pension, “If it’s prices that give you the highest number, we’ll pay that; if it’s earnings, we’ll pay that; and if it’s 2.5%, we’ll pay that.” We were determined to ensure that pensioners got the best deal for the basic state pension whatever was happening to the relative value of those numbers.
	As I made clear in my statement to the House at the end of last year, this Government will use the full value of the September CPI to uprate pensions and social security benefits from April 2012. At a time when the prevailing headline figure for CPI has already fallen to 3.6% and is forecast to fall further during this year, we shall be uprating the overwhelming majority of pensions and benefits by 5.2%.

Glyn Davies: Perhaps I should declare an interest, having reached an age at which I benefit personally from this uprating. Normally, a lot of constituents who are concerned about the increase will contact their MP. This year, none has contacted me, which demonstrates a general acceptance among the population that the Government’s decision is fair.

Steve Webb: The volume of my ministerial correspondence on this issue has been very light. Almost all of it was with people who were afraid because they had seen speculation that we might water down our promises. I have been able to write reassuring letters to them to say that we will honour our promises in full.

Katy Clark: I apologise for missing the beginning of the Minister’s opening remarks. Will not the change mean a reduction from 5.6%, which would have been the uprating had we used RPI? Is the Minister aware that we have a Back-Bench debate on the matter because more than 100,000 people have signed a petition against the changes, particularly as they affect pensions? It therefore surely cannot be the case that people are happy about the changes.

Steve Webb: The hon. Lady may not have been in the Chamber when I referred to next week’s debate, when we will debate such issues at greater length. I was not aware that it was Labour party policy to revert to RPI—its view for now is that CPI is appropriate. She might want to raise that with the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms), who is on the Opposition Front Bench. For the reasons I have given, our judgment is that the CPI basket of goods matches the spending patterns of pensioners. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has confirmed that modelling and people’s response to price changes is better with CPI than in RPI. No index is perfect, but there is a good case for using CPI.
	Funnily enough, when I attended a National Pensioners Convention event in the House a few months ago, the people there all demanded CPI, which shows how the debate has moved on. I am sure the hon. Lady has a press release saying that more is being demanded, but the tenor of the debate was that there was speculation that we would not honour our triple-lock promise. They said: “Minister, will you guarantee us the triple lock—prices, earnings or 2.5%? Will it be the 5.2% that we have just seen?” That was commendable realism on the part of the National Pensioners Convention—that is its role in life—but things may have moved on now it has banked the 5.2% in the current environment. In fact, 5.2% is the biggest cash increase ever and one of the biggest real-terms increases in a long time. I am proud to stand by that figure.
	Restoring the earnings link for the basic state pension was an early action by this coalition Government, putting an end to 30 years of deterioration in the value of the foundation of retirement income relative to average earnings. Better than that, we went one further with our triple guarantee to pay the highest of the growth in earnings, prices or 2.5%, so that even in times of slow earnings growth, we will not see a repeat of the small rises, such as the 75p rise in 2000, presided over by the Labour party.
	In line with the triple guarantee, the new rate for the basic state pension, received by more than 11 million people in this country, will be £107.45 a week for a single person, an increase of £5.30 a week. My hon. Friends in the coalition may be interested to know that that means that from April 2012, the basic state pension is forecast to be 17.1% of average earnings, which is a higher share of average earnings than in any year of the previous Labour Government from 1997.

Stephen Timms: A minute or two ago, the Minister said that this was the highest ever real-terms increase to the state pension.

Steve Webb: No.

Stephen Timms: I thought that was what the Minister said. Perhaps he can clarify that point, because by definition it cannot be a real-terms increase.

Steve Webb: It is the highest cash increase ever and the highest real-terms increase for about 10 years.

Stephen Timms: Given that the increase is purely in line with inflation, how can the Minister describe it as a real-terms increase?

Steve Webb: Because the point at which the money is paid is not the point at which inflation is measured, so when people actually get the money it will be substantially more than the inflation since the last increase.

Stephen Timms: This takes us back to the point raised by the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds (Mr Ruffley). The Minister is making a virtue out of a timing point rather than a substantial point. He is a modest man, and I am sure he will accept that the Government cannot claim credit for inflation being slightly lower now than it was last September.

Steve Webb: On the contrary, let us bear in mind what the Government have done: the Chancellor has taken action on the taxation of petrol, resulting in inflation being lower than it would have been, and we have successively frozen council tax in many parts of the country, which is of huge benefit to many pensioners. There are many things that Governments do that influence inflation. Some factors are global, which is one reason inflation peaked at 5.2%, but measures that the Government have taken have also been one reason prices have been falling. That is entirely to the Government’s credit.

Stephen Lloyd: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government came under considerable pressure not to opt for 5.2% because informed opinion thought that inflation was falling, but with strong urging
	from the Liberal Democrats in the coalition, the Minister determinedly stuck to the 5.2%, which has made it a real-terms increase?

Steve Webb: Indeed. My hon. Friend is right that there were siren voices from some quarters suggesting that we could not afford, or that we should not go for, this inflation figure. He is absolutely right that the coalition parties decided that it was a priority. That is something that I am proud to be associated with.

Oliver Heald: Does the Minister agree that the Government have also gone further than they needed to on the pension credit? The requirement is to uprate by earnings but he has gone one better by increasing it by 3.9%. So not only were the siren calls resisted, but more generosity was shown to the poorest pensioners.

Steve Webb: There was indeed. My carefully structured speech is falling to ribbons. I was about to come to that achievement.

Ian Paisley Jnr: Although I understand the point about the real increase in the state pension from £102.15 to £107.45, I do not consider it something to be doing cartwheels about. In reality, it will not have a major impact on the lives of the elderly across this nation, especially given that just a few weeks ago, the House removed £100 from the winter fuel allowance. Effectively, the oldest pensioners are £50 a year worse off, not better off. I think that we have to get real. This is not enough.

Steve Webb: Let me address that issue directly. Any pensioner will say that the basic state pension is the most important thing to them: they like the winter fuel payment and they like the means-tested benefit—well, they do not always like it but it is valued by those who receive it—but a decent state pension has been the clarion cry of pensioners for decades. For 30 years, pensions have fallen, year on year, relative to earnings, and consequently the ability of the basic state pension to do its job of replacing earnings has been falling for 30 years. We have reversed that.
	The pension will now rise at least in line with earnings, but in years such as this, when price rises are higher than earnings increases, it will rise by more. So the position of pensioners relative to people in work has been improved by this uprating statement. Can we go further? Yes. And we will, because under the triple lock, over a typical retirement, someone retiring this year will gain £13,000 of retirement pension over and above RPI. Can we fix 30 years of decline in a single year? No, of course not, but we can focus the money on the thing that pensioners value the most—the basic state pension.
	As I have mentioned, with the triple guarantee protecting the value of the basic state pension in the longer term, the average pensioner retiring this year on a full—I should have said that—pension will gain about £13,000 compared to the old price link.
	I shall turn to the additional state pensions, which are commonly referred to as SERPS—state earnings-related pension scheme. In April 2010, just before the start of this Parliament, the uprating was based on the year to September 2009, when RPI was negative. That means that in April 2010 the previous Government froze SERPS—I assume they thought that pensioners had not experienced inflation the preceding year. In April
	2011, however, we increased SERPS by 3.1%, and this year SERPS, as well as the basic state pension, will rise by the full 5.2%. That means that the total state pension increase for someone with a full basic pension and average additional pension will be around £6.70 a week, or £348 a year.
	When it comes to the standard minimum guarantee in pension credit, the legislation requires only that an increase be at least in line with the growth in average earnings, so that over the long term the poorest pensioners see their incomes rise in line with the income of the working-age population. As my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Oliver Heald) said, however, this year the relevant earnings index stood at just 2.8%. We judged it unacceptable for the poorest pensioners on the guarantee credit to receive the smallest cash increase of all. Our aim was to ensure that the poorest pensioners received an increase in line with the cash increase to the basic state pension.
	As a result, the order increases the single person’s rate of the standard minimum guarantee by £5.35, taking it to £142.70 per week from April 2012. To help manage expenditure, we have funded the above-earnings increase to the standard minimum guarantee by increasing the savings credit threshold, which means that those with higher levels of income could see less of an increase. However, given the increase to the basic state pension, no one should have a lower weekly income as a result of uprating. This approach enables us to target resources for the poorest pensioners on the guarantee credit.
	I shall turn briefly to working-age benefits. The coalition will ensure that the value of other social security benefits is maintained, through a 5.2% rise, even in these tough economic times. That means, for disabled people above and below pension age, through disability living allowance and attendance allowance, an increase of 5.2%; for people of working age who are not fit for work, through employment and support allowance, an increase of 5.2%; and for people who have lost their job through no fault of their own, through jobseeker’s allowance, an increase of 5.2%. These increases will ensure that the most vulnerable people in society are protected and that those looking for work get the support they need to move into the labour market.
	The order gives real support to protect people against price increases. At a time when the nation’s finances are under severe pressure, the Government will spend an extra £6.6 billion in 2012-13 to protect people against cost of living increases. I cannot help observing that, if someone spends too much time in the DWP, lots of zeros tend to make them glaze over, but this is £6.6 billion of help for some of the most vulnerable people in the country: £4.5 billion more on pensioners; over £1 billion more on disabled people and their carers; and over £1 billion more on people unable to work through sickness or unemployment.
	We have protected the triple lock, thereby securing the largest ever cash rise in the basic state pension; we have uprated the pension credit so that the poorest pensioners benefit from the triple lock; and we have uprated working age benefits by 5.2%, thereby protecting the real incomes of the poorest. I have outlined the coalition Government’s firm commitment to ensuring that even in these difficult times no one is left behind, and I commend these orders to the House.

Stephen Timms: The Minister has helpfully explained that we are dealing with three separate orders, aspects of which are welcome but others of which are decidedly unwelcome. I shall make it clear where we do not support the Government.
	The Pensions Act 2008 (Amendment) Order—to give it a rather briefer title than the one the Minister used—makes minor amendments to protected rights over payments of defined contributions contracted-out pension schemes. As he said, the underpinning legislation is the Pensions Act 2008. I accept that the order is necessary to clarify a following order, and I have no objection to it.
	The most substantial of the orders—the one that I am sure this debate will focus on—is the Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2012, which, as the Minister said, uprates most out-of-work benefits and the basic state pension in line with the consumer prices index. For most out-of-work benefits, this will be the second year that CPI has been used rather than RPI, but for the basic state pension, it is the first year. Members might recall that, like this year, last year the Government trumpeted their triple lock on the basic state pension.
	I recall that in the debate last year the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes), who is sadly not with us today, congratulated his hon. Friend the Minister on his success in introducing the triple lock—only, the Government did not, in fact, apply it last year. Under the triple lock, the basic state pension would have been uprated by CPI, which was a long way below RPI last year, so the Minister—prudently, I think—decided to overrule his triple lock on its first outing and instead operate the old mechanism, uprating the basic state pension by the higher rate, RPI. In doing so, he exposed to public view the weakness of his triple lock. He had to override it in the first year it was due to be applied. Advertised as a safeguard for pensioners, the triple lock in fact undermines pensions uprating.
	The Government have told us that the switch from RPI to CPI is not simply a deficit reduction measure. Instead, the justification for the switch is that, as the Minister said again today, CPI is a more accurate measure of changes in the cost of living for pensioners. Last year the Minister told us that he viewed CPI as
	“the most appropriate measure of price inflation for this purpose,”
	and that he saw
	“no reason to change it in the future.”—[Official Report, 17 February 2011; Vol. 523, c. 1174-77.]
	However, the view that RPI, let alone CPI, is an adequate measure of pensioner inflation is one on which many pensioners would take issue with him, as the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) suggested a few minutes ago. I was interested in the Minister’s view that the National Pensioners Convention is happy with CPI uprating. However, as the Civil Service Pensioners Alliance, among others, has pointed out in its briefing:
	“The Royal Statistical Society…has said that CPI fails to reflect the spending patterns of pensioners and the rising costs they face. The Institute for Fiscal Studies”—
	to which the Minister referred—
	“has shown that most pensioner households are not shielded from many of the costs excluded from CPI. The UK Statistics Authority…has said that they do not believe the CPI should become the primary measure of data inflation until housing costs are included,”
	which is a point that he touched on in response to my intervention.
	The Minister has tried to paint the change as simply a sensible bureaucratic change, not one that is ideologically motivated or that represents a cut in the income of pensioners, but in reality that is not the case. As the UK Statistics Authority put it last year:
	“Questions about compensation, who to compensate and what for, are straightforwardly political questions, not for statisticians.”
	In other words, this is a matter for political decision. Let us be frank with people: the Government have chosen to uprate benefits and pensions permanently in a way that, in the case of benefits, will usually be meaner than the method used before and, in the case of pensions, was meaner this year and last year, which is why the Government overrode it last year and used the old method instead.

George Hollingbery: I seem to recall some embarrassment in the Labour party back in 2000 when the low rate of 1.1% was used to uprate pensions, the result of which was a 75p increase. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, under this Government, the triple lock will ensure that 2.5% is the minimum that can be paid?

Stephen Timms: Of course, that is indeed the effect of the mechanism that the Government have chosen. I would simply point out to the hon. Gentleman that if the previous method was still in place, there would be a higher increase in the basic state pension than the Minister has announced today.

Ian Paisley Jnr: The right hon. Gentleman has mentioned the triple lock, which interests me and which applies only to the basic state pension. A number of charities, such as Age Concern and others, have contacted me about this issue. They argue that the Government should apply the triple guarantee to other elements of the state pension, including the additional pension allowance. Does he agree that that would make good sense?

Stephen Timms: That is a matter that the Minister may well want to comment on in his response to this debate. In my view, the triple lock is certainly not the wonderful device that the Government maintain it is. As I have said, it is leading to a lower uprating of the basic state pension in the year ahead than if the RPI mechanism was still being used.

Oliver Heald: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that we need to exercise judgment about what the increase should be? One of the faults of the last Government was to be too rigid. My hon. Friend the Member for Meon Valley (George Hollingbery) has already mentioned the 75p increase, but there was also the freezing of the additional pension, which, again, was considered a mean act. Is it not right for the Government to take a judgment and—on pension credit, for example—to make increases well above the rate that they have to use, which is earnings, and instead use a higher measure, in order to be fair?

Stephen Timms: The hon. Gentleman’s argument is a different one from the Minister’s. The Minister says that because of the triple lock, pensioners are safeguarded
	and need not worry about what future judgments Ministers will make. In a way, I am rather more with the hon. Gentleman on this than with the application of the formula. Again, however, I would point out that last year—the first year that this supposedly wonderful mechanism was in place—the Government overrode it. I am therefore not quite sure what certainty pensioners would have for the future about whether, in the event of siren voices being heard—we heard about those earlier—the triple lock might be overrode in the other direction, if someone judges that to be appropriate.

Steve Webb: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the statutory position that his Government left—and which was the basis of the spending plans for 2012 that they published for us—was based not on the higher of either prices or earnings but on earnings alone, and that the pension rise that his party pencilled in for 2012 was not five-and-a-bit per cent., but more like 2.5%?

Stephen Timms: As the Minister well knows, the basic state pension was uprated over a long period in line with RPI. My point is simply that if that mechanism was still in place, there would be a greater increase in the current year than the Minister has incorporated in the order before us today.

Steve Webb: But if the right hon. Gentleman thought that in the event of prices being higher than earnings he would choose prices, why did he make it the statutory position that just earnings would be used, therefore pencilling in an earnings-only increase for 2012, which meant that we had to find extra money to do better than just earnings this year?

Stephen Timms: It is probably the case that the Government’s poor performance on inflation—to go back to a point the Minister made earlier—and the resulting high level of inflation have been a surprise. I do not think anyone expected inflation to rise so rapidly. However, I want to underline the point, which the Minister has not acknowledged yet, that if RPI was still in place for the coming year, the increase for pensioners would be higher than the order in question sets out.
	The judgment to adopt this approach of using a permanently meaner version of uprating than was in place before is one that we oppose. Of course there is a pressing need to reduce the deficit. We know, as does the International Monetary Fund—and, it would seem, the credit rating agencies and, this week, the former Defence Secretary—that reducing the deficit requires economic growth, which is strikingly absent at the moment. With the economy not creating enough new jobs and so many people out of work, not paying taxes but instead claiming benefits, targets for reducing the deficit will just keep being pushed back further and further. We heard in the autumn statement that we will be borrowing £158 billion more over the lifetime of this Parliament than on the last estimate, because the Government’s economic policy has failed to deliver growth and the economy has flatlined. If, instead of the permanent switch to CPI uprating, a temporary switch had been proposed—with the aim of contributing to deficit reduction over a short period—that might, in our view, have been justified, but we do not support the Government’s policy of a permanent switch to meaner uprating.
	In the debate last year, the Minister attempted to make something of the fact that, for five of the past 20 years, RPI had been lower than CPI. Well, it was not lower last year, and it is not lower this year. RPI has generally been higher. Since 1989, the gap between RPI and RPI minus X and the CPI measure has been 0.7% on average. The Office for Budget Responsibility’s November economic and fiscal outlook suggests that the long-run difference between RPI and CPI is likely to be a good deal more, at about 1.4 percentage points. That is twice as much as that historic average, so the OBR thinks that the gap between RPI uprating and the CPI uprating that the Government want to apply in perpetuity is going to get bigger, not narrower.

George Hollingbery: I think I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that he has made a commitment that, had a Labour Government been in power now, they would have uprated pensions using RPI. Has he calculated how much that might cost, and is that a spending commitment that he is prepared to make here today? Secondly, if he is arguing for RPI uprating in future, does he have any idea of the long-term commitment that that might involve for the Government?

Stephen Timms: I shall deal with the last point immediately. I have said that if this Government had proposed a temporary switch to CPI uprating in order to contribute to deficit reduction, we would have looked seriously at that argument. It is the permanent downgrading of the uprating method for pensions and all other benefits that we think is wrong.
	The DWP impact assessment from July last year told us that the impact on occupational pensions over the next 15 years would be more than £70 billion, and I think the Minister has said that it would be more than £80 billion. It will certainly involve a very large figure indeed. In this coming year, the gap between CPI and RPI—the figure that has been used refers back to last September—is relatively small, at 0.4%. I think the Minister is hoping that pensioners will not notice that his triple lock, which sounds so generous, is in fact delivering a lower increase than the long-established formula used by all Governments until this one. High inflation makes this a substantial cash increase, but, given what the Minister has said about the importance of keeping inflation low, it is not greatly to this Government’s credit that the cash increase is so large.

Stephen Lloyd: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree, however, that if the Labour Government had used the triple lock, there would never have been the scandalous scenario of a few years ago when Labour gave pensioners an increase of 75p?

Stephen Timms: The point I am making is that if the RPI method were in place for the coming year, the increase would be larger than the one in the order before us today.

Sarah Newton: I acknowledge the right hon. Gentleman’s deep knowledge of this subject, but he is not giving the House an entirely accurate picture. For the longest period, the state pension was linked to average earnings, but it suits his argument today to make a comparison with RPI. The huge benefit of the triple lock is that it provides a
	choice. Average earnings could be taken into account, for example, and if they grew between 6% and 7%, so would pensions. Also, there is always the floor of 2.5%, which would prevent a repeat of the disgrace of giving pensioners 75p, as happened under the last Government.

Stephen Timms: I thank the hon. Lady for her generous remark. There is some merit in having an earnings underpin to the system, but I say again that, for the year ahead, RPI would give a higher increase than the triple lock has delivered. That was the case last year as well, which is why the Government set the triple lock aside in the first year it was supposed to be in place. This year, the difference is much smaller, at 0.4%, and the Government must be hoping that people will not notice that the triple lock is delivering less than an RPI uprating would have done. However, in principle, having an earnings underpin as well is entirely helpful.

Sarah Newton: But does the right hon. Gentleman not see the benefit for pensioners and the wider economy of the certainty provided by the triple lock? People can now plan for their retirement, and the Exchequer can plan for the economy.

Stephen Timms: It is not clear what the degree of certainty is. As I have said, the triple lock was overridden last year because it would have given such a low rate of uprating. This year, it has been applied because there is not much difference between RPI and the triple lock. So no, I do not think that any kind of rock-solid certainty has been introduced; the triple lock was waived the first time it was supposed to be put in place.

Andrew Bingham: The right hon. Gentleman talks about certainty, but will he acknowledge that the triple lock will give pensioners the certainty that they will no longer get the derisory 75p they got when his party was in government?

Stephen Timms: As I have said, in the first year that the triple lock was due to be put in place, it was overridden, so I am not sure about the certainty to which the hon. Gentleman refers.

Oliver Heald: The right hon. Gentleman is being a bit naughty. It is a general provision in many pension schemes that there is a method of indexation, and it is often permissible to exceed it. To exceed the triple lock is not to break it; it is simply to be more generous. I do not think that “overridden” is the right word to use.

Stephen Timms: I deny being naughty. I am simply making the point that the Government have been telling pensioners that they are now in a wonderful new era, thanks to the triple lock, yet it had to be overridden in the first year it was supposed to be in place because it was not delivering an adequate increase. I am not persuaded that the degree of confidence that Conservative Members believe to have been bestowed on pensioners is a reality.

Ian Paisley Jnr: Far be it from me to encourage the right hon. Gentleman to be naughty, but is there not a certainty that pensioners—those over 80 in particular—are now going to be £50 a year worse off because of the loss of the winter fuel allowance additional payment?

Stephen Timms: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. People will feel that loss to a significant extent.
	Those big figures, £70 billion or £80 billion, are a direct hit on the incomes of pensioners. They have paid into a pension, in many cases throughout their entire working lives, on the understanding that it would be indexed in a particular way. The Civil Service Pensioners Alliance notes that many of them will have
	“entered into particular financial arrangements such as the purchase of added years, the conversion of lump sums into pensions and acceptance of moves to other employers on TUPE terms on the basis that future indexation will be linked to RPI”.
	That contributory deal, understood and signed up to by pensioners, is being broken for good—permanently. KPMG has estimated that the total cost of the move to CPI uprating across the pensions system to public sector and private sector pensioners over the next 40 years will be £250 billion. The Government tell us—Conservative Members have just attempted to make this point as well—that pensioners will appreciate the stability. I have to say that they would appreciate even more having an income that kept pace with their costs.
	I want to ask the Minister one specific question. The UK Statistics Authority has made the case that
	“CPI should become the primary measure of consumer price inflation, but only when the inclusion in the index of owner occupiers’ housing costs has been achieved.”
	I am grateful to the Minister for explaining the timetable he envisages for a change to the CPI mechanism possibly being introduced. He has not committed the Government to introducing such a change, but he has indicated when they expect to be in a position to do so. However, does he acknowledge the UK Statistics Authority’s point that, as things stand, the CPI is not an adequate measure, because of the exclusion from it of important elements of housing costs?

Eilidh Whiteford: The right hon. Gentleman has advocated a temporary use of CPI, but will he clarify whether he is advocating a return to the use of RPI at some future date? If so, when that would be?

Stephen Timms: I am simply making the point that if the Government had proposed a temporary switch to CPI uprating, perhaps for three years, that would have been a reasonable proposition for us to consider. As it is, we have this permanent switch, which we oppose. As to what we will do when elected to government, I will have to ask the hon. Lady to wait until the publication of our manifesto ahead of the next election, which she and many others will be eagerly awaiting.
	Will the Minister say more about what will happen once this revised formula for CPI has been drawn up and published by the UK Statistics Authority? Can he provide any encouragement that the Government will in fact use what will almost certainly be a higher rate resulting from that, or will they wish to stick with the current, lower CPI figure—the one being used for the coming year?
	This order also provides for an increase in the standard minimum guarantee element of the pension credit—3.9%, as the Minister said, which is above the increase in earnings to which it would be statutorily tied. It is not clear to me how the 3.9% figure has been arrived at; can the Minister shed some light on that? I do not intend to object to it. As the Minister also said, to pay for the
	increase, the threshold for the savings credit element, which rewards those who have made their own provision for retirement, has been increased by 8.4%—quite a large amount. The maximum savings credit payable has been reduced by about £2 a week. The reduction in eligibility was made clear when this policy was announced, but the reduction in the maximum amount was not announced at that time.
	How many people does the Minister expect to be affected by those changes, and what financial savings will each of them realise for the Exchequer towards the cost of the slightly higher uprating of the minimum guarantee element of the pension credit? We need to recognise that what is happening here is that money is being taken away from slightly better-off pensioners who are still receiving pension credit in order to give to those who are dependent on the guarantee element.
	Let me press the Minister on one specific question about CPI uprating. The Government are freezing local housing allowance rates from April in preparation for the linking of the benefit to CPI. To put it politely, that has not been well publicised. One might almost think that the Government would prefer it if people were not made aware of it. When the policy was originally announced, the impact assessment said:
	“Some savings are assumed in 2012/13, on the assumption that LHA rates will be fixed at some point ahead of the first uprating.”
	It did not say that it would be fixed for the entire year, which is what the Government are now saying. What is the Minister’s justification for doing that?
	Local housing allowance rates will be calculated annually as either the lower of the rent at the 30th percentile of local rents or the previous year’s allowance uprated by CPI. That is my understanding; perhaps the Minister will confirm whether I am right. What that means, of course, is that LHA rates will fall over time below the 30th percentile of local rents. Surely Ministers should commit to ensuring, as they seem to have indicated, that at least 30% of local rented housing supply will be affordable to tenants on LHA; otherwise, there is no clear definition of what Ministers expect the LHA to deliver in each local area. Let me ask the Minister directly: what proportion of the local housing market do Ministers think should be affordable for tenants on housing benefit? When will they step in, and how far does the proportion have to fall before they will step in to uprate the LHA level back up to, hopefully, the 30th percentile point?
	I have another query about housing benefit. In paragraph 4 of part 20 on page 14 of the order, the maximum deductions from benefit in respect of heating, cooking, hot water and lighting, when those costs are included in the rent and paid to the landlord, are being raised substantially by 18%. Will the Minister say a few words about why those deductions from benefit have been increased so much?
	The Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order requires occupational pension schemes to uprate their guaranteed minimum pensions by their 3% share of CPI, with the state meeting the remainder of the costs. These provide an important floor to defined benefit schemes so that individuals do not get less than they would if they had remained on the state second pension. The 3% increase would have occurred under either CPI or RPI uprating, so it is not objectionable in itself.
	This year we are debating these orders as proceedings on the Welfare Reform Bill seem to be drawing to a close.

Stephen Lloyd: I have enjoyed listening to the right hon. Gentleman. In my time in Parliament, I have always appreciated his fairness when he debates various issues. I would like to press him on one matter. He said at the beginning of his speech that he agreed with the Government on some aspects of the uprating. Thus far, however, I have mainly heard about where he disagrees with the Government about the uprating, so I would be grateful if he clarified what he thinks is good about it.

Stephen Timms: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for not accusing me of being naughty—indeed, rather the reverse. I have drawn attention to a number of points of agreement with the Government. For example, I do not object at all to the Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order. On its own, the increase in the pension credit guarantee level is welcome. We need to know a little more about how it is going to be funded, but it is a good thing in principle, as I said. I also made it clear that I had no objection to the first order I commented on. I thus hope that I will manage to maintain my reputation for fairness—at least in the hon. Gentleman’s mind.
	As the debates on the Welfare Reform Bill come to an end, it is important to place this measure in the context of the Government’s wider changes, which will penalise pensioners and in some cases make it impossible for people of working age to save. Couples with one member drawing near to the state pension age are unaware that, as a result of the Welfare Reform Bill, if the other member is younger they will not qualify for pension credit, so the household will not benefit from the increase in the pension credit guarantee level to which the Minister drew attention—I understand why he did so. Couples who live in council or housing association accommodation and claim housing benefit will face the under-occupation penalty; if one of them is below the age of entitlement for pension credit, it will be applied to them as well.
	Families on tax credits do not yet know that they will be punished for saving. If they are trying to save up for a deposit on a house or for a child’s university education, and have managed to save more than £16,000—such people have been and are currently entitled to tax credits—they will not get any universal credit at all. For some, universal credit will make it impossible to save. The Minister made a virtue—again, I understand why he did so—of the 5.2% increase in the level of contributory employment and support allowance in the order. What he did not mention was that 100,000 people will lose out when the time limit on contributory employment support allowance comes into effect. If, against all our efforts, the Welfare Reform Bill achieves Royal Assent in time, those 100,000 people will lose out at the beginning of April and another 100,000 will lose out in the following year as they hit the one-year limit. That is the world that the Welfare Reform Bill is ushering in.
	We recognise that there are elements in these orders that are acceptable—some, let me say again for the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd), are even welcome. Other elements, however, and in particular the permanent adoption of a lower rate of inflation uprating for pensions and other benefits, we cannot support. For that reason, we will be unable to support the Government in the Lobby.

Sarah Newton: It is a great pleasure to be able to speak in the debate, and it saddens me that I to have to begin my speech with the comments that I am about to make.
	During yesterday’s debate—I sat through most of it, and have read the Hansard report—we were subjected to hours and hours of party-political point-scoring, with barely a mention of patients. Today, too, we have heard very partisan comments. Rather than constructive opposition or suggestions of what the Opposition might do to help the Government tackle the difficult issues that we face, we have simply heard opposition for opposition’s sake. A great many criticisms and partisan points have been made, but we have been given no real indication of what the Opposition would do.
	That is not just saddening for me, but very annoying and upsetting for the hundreds of thousands of people who sent us here, and sent us here at a time when our great nation is in great peril. We have inherited a dreadful economic legacy, and we are facing huge changes in the way the world is operating. All that requires a Government with terrific purpose, who are able to govern for the common good and deliver the huge changes that we need now and in the future.
	The fact that our two parties have come together in a coalition has prompted many sneers and giggles from the very few Opposition Members who are present to take part in this important debate; but we have come together, and we are facing up to those challenges. It is true that we must make some very difficult decisions, but I believe that those decisions are underpinned by exactly the right principles of fairness. We as a Government are trying to live within our means, and not to spend more public money than we take in taxes. It is necessary for us to make decisions about who is to receive the money that we have, and we are clear about the fact that we want the most vulnerable people in our society—those who need it most—to receive that money.
	Like every other Member in the Chamber, I know that many hard-working families in both the public and the private sector are suffering a terrific squeeze in their incomes. There are people who have experienced pay freezes, if not pay cuts, and people who are losing benefits. I know that the difficult decisions that we have had to make will affect a large number of those hard-working families, but I also know that they have elderly relatives and neighbours and want to see a Government who will do the right thing for the elderly people in our society. Tough choices are having to be made—awful decisions about child benefit, child tax credit and working tax credit—but I believe that those families will be pleased that we are standing up to our principles, and ensuring that people living with disabilities and that elderly relatives are given a decent rise in their pensions.
	I agree with some of the comments that have been made. I am not doing cartwheels. People living on a state pension, even those receiving pension tax credits, are not living in the lap of luxury; that is a modest income for many people. However, I am proud to be part of a Government who are increasing benefits in a way that will enable people to enjoy a decent standard of living.
	We have discussed changes relating to the cost of heating homes. I have a great deal of sympathy with the Members representing parts of Northern Ireland who
	have spoken today. Like Cornwall and other rural parts of the United Kingdom, Northern Ireland contains a huge number of people who are off grid. Nevertheless, there is a constant and very upsetting misrepresentation of the Government’s policies on dealing with the important issue of fuel poverty and the excess winter deaths that go with it. With your indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will tackle that, because such comments—which have been made persistently today—engender a huge amount of fear among the many pensioners and their families who listen to our debates.
	It is true that there have been changes in the winter fuel allowance, but there is also the warm home bonus of £120. The Government have made money available for innovative projects, and I want to spend a bit of time telling the House about a project in Cornwall, the healthy living programme, for which the Department of Health has provided money this winter. Members of housing authorities, Cornwall council and social services departments, GPs, Age UK and a range of other charities are working in partnership, targeting the families—many of them elderly—who are at the greatest risk of suffering badly as a result of the cold weather this winter, and making sure that all available help is provided.
	As we all know from our constituency work, hundreds of millions of pounds of benefits are out there for the most vulnerable people, but those are often the people who are least likely to avail themselves of benefits, whether they take the form of actual cash benefits from the Department for Work and Pensions, free insulation, or advice and information. The members of that group in Cornwall are doing highly effective work to ensure that now, this winter, the help that is available is reaching those who need it. I am very pleased that Ministers from the Department are coming down to Cornwall to meet them, and to observe at first hand the way in which, with the assistance of relatively modest sums—our grant was £140,000—team work, thinking outside the box and doing things differently is saving people’s lives and contributing to the quality of life this winter.

Eilidh Whiteford: Obviously I cannot speak for the Northern Ireland Member who raised the issue pertaining to his constituents, but as I represent a rural constituency in which people pay excess prices for their fuel and often have no access to social tariffs, I am very concerned about that as well.
	The underlying issue, which I raised with the Minister, is that older people and people with disabilities who spend a lot of time in their houses are increasingly more affected by inflation than those of us who spend most of our day outside our homes. Both the Office for National Statistics and the Institute for Fiscal Studies have pointed out that older people experience inflation at a higher rate than the rest of us, as do people on low incomes. The evidence is there. What concerns me is that CPI does not measure accurately the actual experience of people’s costs, which are higher than either CPI or RPI—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. I remind the hon. Lady that she is making an intervention, not a speech—yet.
	Before the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) resumes her own speech, may I point out to her that we are discussing uprating orders, not
	projects in Cornwall, however fantastic they are. She must make her speech relevant to the uprating orders, not to future grant applications for very worthy projects in her constituency.

Sarah Newton: I entirely take those points on board, Madam Deputy Speaker. I hope that the House will forgive my enthusiasm for the excellent work that is being done in my constituency. I will now confine my comments to the subject of the debate, but I beg your indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker: I should like to respond to the comments made by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) by touching slightly on the issue of the costs of heating a home. They are part of the cost of inflation, which obviously has something to do with the pension upratings.
	As the Minister has acknowledged, it is difficult to come up with a measure that truly reflects the costs of individual households. People with disabilities and pensioners will often be at home for many more hours in the day than other people, and will also need to keep their homes warmer, because as people age their bodies are less able to regulate temperature. That is a well-known fact. However, I feel that the efforts that the Government are making, and especially the move towards flat-rate pensions of £140 a week, will start to provide people with a reliable amount of income with which they will be able to afford to heat their homes.
	A huge problem at present is that people do not claim benefits that could make a real difference to them. Pensioners are the people who most need the benefits, but they are also least likely to claim them. That applies particularly to the group to whom the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan referred—people in their eighties. Theirs is a proud generation, a generation that has fought and lived through the war and we owe them a great deal. They are very stoic and very proud, and they find it difficult to apply for the benefits to which they are entitled. I think we all have an important job to do in speaking with one voice and saying to people of that generation that they have earned the right to claim those benefits. There should be no stigma, and we must make it as easy as possible for them to claim. I urge anybody who knows an older person whom they feel may be struggling to make sure they are claiming the benefits to which they are entitled. The Government have been doing a lot to simplify the application process and to make information more widely available, and there are also wonderful charities and organisations, including the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, that are doing just that.
	I am very proud to support the Government on these measures. There has long been great uncertainty about what will happen to the state pension. With the upratings and the triple lock, there is now certainty. There is a commitment to making the state pension the cornerstone of planning for retirement. As the Minister said, we cannot right the wrongs of the last decade in one fell swoop, especially as we are facing the most difficult financial situation in a generation, but the message that today’s measures and commitment send out is that people can plan for the future as they can have confidence in respect of their pension. That is very important.
	The right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) rightly said that we should consider the upratings in a broader context. I had the great privilege of serving on
	the Welfare Reform Bill Committee, and I think his description of the broader context of how we are supporting pensioners was not sufficiently generous. What is of most importance for pensioners and their families is both having enough income to live on and the safe knowledge that there will be an NHS for them when they need it. Elderly people are far and away the largest users of the NHS, and it is hugely helpful to them that this Government committed not to cut NHS expenditure—whereas the Labour party said it would do that, and would have done so in this Parliament. The fact that we are finally linking social care and the whole range of other services that elderly people and their families need to be able to have the quality of life and independence they want—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. We are talking about pensions and benefits uprating. We are not having a wider debate on all the Government’s policies. The hon. Lady must refer specifically to the measures discussed by the Minister when introducing this debate.

Sarah Newton: The shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for East Ham, referred to the wider context of these measures, and I was merely responding to his comments. I shall, however, now desist from referring to the range of policies that the Government are putting in place to support elderly people and their families.
	I support the Government’s measures. They constitute a huge step in the right direction and I am very proud that my Government are honouring their commitment and delivering a decent level of income for pensioners and people living with disabilities in retirement. I urge Opposition Members to desist from misrepresenting what the Government are doing, especially for people with disabilities and pensions, as that is creating fear and anxiety. That is why there are 100,000 signatories to the petition. If the people who signed it knew the truth, they would not have done so. It makes me very angry that people are contacting me because they have been needlessly frightened by Opposition scaremongering that, somehow, the Government are going to take away the benefits for disabled people and slash the benefits for pensioners. As the Minister has made clear today, nothing is further from the truth.
	Let us have a constructive Opposition. The people of this country want a constructive Opposition who join the Government in tackling the difficult decisions of the day. They want the Opposition to stop this dangerous party political points scoring.

Katy Clark: I apologise for not being in the Chamber at the start of the Minister’s speech. I always find his comments most informative, as he is very knowledgeable about the issues under discussion—although I do not agree with many aspects of Government policy in this area. I had not intended to speak in the debate, but have been spurred to do so by the assertion that these proposals are uncontroversial, particularly in relation to the retail prices index and consumer prices index change. That is certainly not uncontroversial.
	I shall restrict what I say to the issue of RPI and CPI. We have already had the biggest public sector strikes—indeed, the biggest strikes—for generations because of
	the change from RPI to CPI. I believe the Minister is shaking his head, but union members are very concerned about the cumulative impact of this change over many years.
	Today’s debate has focused more on pensioners than on social security benefits. It is unfortunate that the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg), is unable to be present as she had a fall earlier this week. She has a huge amount of expertise in these subjects and her contribution will be greatly missed. I am sure all Members will want to send her best wishes for a speedy recovery.
	The social security ramifications of these changes are less spoken about because there is less lobbying on social security issues. Although those in receipt of benefits contact their MPs about the issues affecting them, there are not many well-funded organisations representing them and lobbying MPs. There are more pensioner organisations and the National Pensioners Convention has been mentioned. It and other organisations, including Age UK, have contacted MPs about the issues under discussion today. They are calling on Members to vote against the proposals and, in particular, against the social security benefits uprating order, especially because of the RPI and CPI change. That highlights how controversial this issue is, and we will return to it again next Thursday when we debate the petition.
	There is much controversy because the change will result in pensioners and those in receipt of social security benefits receiving smaller increases in most years. The switch from RPI to CPI will greatly affect the living standards of both pensioners and those in receipt of benefits cumulatively over a long period of time. CPI inflation is usually about 0.7% lower than RPI inflation. That is because of how the rates are calculated. As a result, the increase in public sector pensions this year will be 5.2%, whereas under RPI it would have been 5.6%. I am sure the Minister will challenge that finding if he disputes it.
	The Labour party does not necessarily oppose the change in the short term—over a period of four years. However, I do not support that position. This change is dangerous because of the impact it will have year on year. Organisations including Age UK say that someone who retired on 1 April 2009 with a £10,000 state pension or public service pension will now have a pension of £10,846, whereas if the RPI link had been retained the sum would have been £11,046. The cumulative loss to such people is already £350, therefore.
	The real concern is the cumulative effect that this change will have over a long period of time, particularly for someone who is retired for a lengthy period, and that is why I am speaking today. For example, someone who had a 25-year pension—of course not everybody will be lucky enough to have one of those—would lose £35,000 over the lifetime of that pension. The cumulative effect is substantial. Indeed, the Office for Budget Responsibility has recently spoken about the long-term difference between the two measures, and the significant change and reduction in living standards that will take place over time.
	In the short term, this is the wrong measure. I say to Government Members that their policies of austerity are not working.

Sarah Newton: indicated  dissent .

Katy Clark: The hon. Lady may shake her head, and she has spoken about many aspects of Government policy, but she must be aware that the cumulative effect of the policies that her Government are pursuing is to take money out of the pockets of some of the poorest and the most vulnerable in this country, and out of some of the most deprived communities. That is the wrong economic policy, it will not lead to growth and it clearly is not the policy we need for social justice. It is one reason why the gap between rich and poor is increasing so greatly at the moment.
	The hon. Lady spoke about Labour manifesto policies, but the Conservative party gave assurances before the election that it had no plans to change the current index-linking of pensions. The Liberal Democrats also said that they regarded index-linking rights as protected. No doubt they will say, “We opened the books and everything was very different”, but the point I am making is that these measures will have long-term cumulative impacts that will hurt the poorest and most vulnerable in society.

Sarah Newton: I completely disagree with the suggestion that we are targeting the most vulnerable people, but my question to you is: can you remind the House what happened to the gap between the richest and poorest people in this society under Labour?

Dawn Primarolo: Order. I would love to answer that question, but I am prevented from doing so. The hon. Lady knows that she is not supposed to address the Chair in that way. In responding to her point, I hope that the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark) will come back to discussion of the uprating order.

Katy Clark: I am very grateful for that, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	The impact of the changes to benefits and pensions uprating will be similar to the impact on wages that is being seen at the moment, whereby the incomes of the lowest paid are decreasing in real terms; the change from RPI to CPI means, as I have said, that the rate of increase in the incomes of those on the lowest incomes will reduce. I am sure that many of the hon. Lady’s constituents will come to see her to discuss benefit issues over the forthcoming period, and the impact of all this will become clear over a long period of time. It will have an impact on the communities we represent.

Nick de Bois: Has the hon. Lady considered putting this in context? People on low incomes are nevertheless receiving a relatively high increase here, whereas many who are working and are on low incomes are receiving no increases at all. Although I think she is very genuine, her appeals need to be put in context and she needs to consider the situation of those in work.

Katy Clark: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s contribution, and I agree fully with what he is saying; we do need to take into account the public sector freezes and the fact that many on modest and low pay in
	the private sector have had their salaries reduced—they have definitely not received substantial increases. That is exactly the point I am making: measures such as this, which keep down and restrain the incomes of those on modest and low incomes, are not the policies that are needed. Of course, executive pay and the incomes of the highest paid are increasing at the same time, but I shall not dwell on that today because it is not the subject of this debate. However, I hope that we will continue to discuss it in the House and that action will be taken by the Government.
	In conclusion, we will be focusing, yet again, on these issues next week, and of course court proceedings are taking place, but I felt that I had to put my deep concern about this change on the record. My concern arises not just because of the annual change this year, which will have a detrimental impact on people’s pockets now, but because of the cumulative effect that this policy will have over many generations. The impact will be an increase in the gap between rich and poor in this country, and I believe that that should not be the policy of this or any Government.

David Ruffley: I wish to say something about the public spending implications of using the September 2011 CPI figure for uprating and about the fairness of doing so. Using that September figure for the following April-to-April fiscal year means that it will be 18 months out of date by the end of 2012-13. If the Government had not used the September figure and had instead used the six-month average to the end of 2011 of 4.7%, the Treasury would have been able to save a remarkable £780 million compared with the 5.2% uprating.
	Alternatively, the Government could have decided to take an average figure from April 2011 to April 2012, using a forecast for the current quarter. Had they done so, the figure would have been not 5.2% or 4.7%, but 4.4%, which would have saved Her Majesty’s Treasury £1 billion from the uprating—and there is more. Let us just ask ourselves what this uprating is really about. It is done to compensate benefit recipients for the cost of living increases from April 2012 to April 2013—it is about the actual cost of living. The Bank of England forecast for what inflation will average during that period is 2.8%, rather than the 5.2% that we are being invited to sign up to. If that 2.8% figure were used, the welfare bill saving to Her Majesty’s Treasury would be more than £3 billion.
	Times are tough and we need to look after the most vulnerable in society, but I am also a public spending hawk. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is doing very good work in setting out an austerity programme, but it is not nearly austere enough for me. The public spending implications of this uprating are terribly important, and I hope that the Minister will explain in a little more detail than he did in reply to my earlier intervention what the Government’s thinking was at the time of the very public discussion in September and October, in the run-up to the pre-Budget report, about what we should do about this September figure.
	I repeat that that figure does not begin to reflect the actual cost of living for the 12 months from April 2012, which this uprating is meant to cover. The figure being
	used will be 18 months out of date by the end of that uprating year, which is about to commence. The forecast is for 2.8% and if we had followed that, rather than the 5.2% figure, £3 billion would go to Her Majesty’s Exchequer.
	Now, for those who will say, “Ah—he wants to be beastly to pensioners,” I have that one covered, too. Pensioners, as distinct from non-pensioner benefit recipients, should have the benefit of the triple lock using not the September 2011 figure but that for the year before the uprating year—that is, from the fiscal year we are in now, from April 2011 to April 2012. As I said, that would be 4.4% rather than 5.2%. If we gave pensioners that benefit, as we would differentiate the uprating for pensioner and non-pensioner benefit recipients, non-pensioner recipients would get 2.8%. We could, nevertheless, save the Exchequer £1.7 billion. Using a more rational and economically literate uprating figure, rather than the figure from the September prior to the fiscal year that is being uprated, would mean that we could save the Treasury money.
	Let me make one point about the idea of basing calculations on Bank of England inflation forecasts from April of this year to April 2013. I know that some people are very sceptical about Bank of England forecasts. At least one of them is present in the Chamber—or two including me—and that is my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood), who is very distinguished and hugely learned. Even if one were to say that 2.8% for the fiscal year 2012-13 is a bit on the low side and that the Bank might be wrong, inflation is still very likely to fall to 3%. There are three reasons for that: first, the VAT increase is falling out of the calculation; secondly, the inflationary effects of the massive decline and depreciation in sterling are being unwound; and, thirdly, world commodity prices, particularly as regards energy products, fuel and so on, are coming down, too. So there are at least three reasons—probably more—for believing that the next 12 to 18 months will see a declining trajectory in price inflation.
	Let me say a few words about the practicality of using forecasts as I have suggested. The flexibility that I am seeking as an alternative to sticking to a rigid September forecast for a full six months before the year of uprating begins can be seen in New Zealand, where they distinguish between pension benefits, which are not allowed to fall below 65% of average earnings in that year or rise above more than 72%, and non-pension benefits, where the Government have discretion. That would be much more sensible and the discretion could be used on the basis of the forecasts, which are more relevant and relate to the year in which one is trying to compensate benefit recipients rather than using an out-of-date September number.
	There is a key point, which was raised in the press and media last autumn, about whether it can be right—my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois) touched on this—for non-pensioner benefit recipients who are receiving a 5.2% increase to receive it at a time when those who are working on very low incomes are not receiving any kind of uplift at all and have to cope with the ravages of the rising cost of living. We know that that is something that not only right-of-centre Conservative Members of Parliament like me will say. My point is not a million miles removed from the excellent Government policy of a benefit cap of £26,000 for any family that does not have anyone in their household
	in work. Why should people who do not work get a better deal than those who try to do work of some description, whether it is part time or otherwise?
	I find it difficult to justify to my constituents how this Government have doggedly stuck to a September CPI uprating. The thrust of my remarks is based on the grounds of fairness to those who are working, poor and on low incomes and of affordability to Her Majesty’s Treasury at a time when we are trying to squeeze every possible pound of taxpayers’ money spent in the public interest to make it work more effectively and to get the deficit down. Some of the figures amount to billions—not just millions—and that money could be used to do good things. We could potentially reduce the deficit faster than projected or target tax cuts. There is money to be squeezed out of the budget of the Department for Work and Pensions.
	In that spirit of honest inquiry and with a desire to squeeze public spending harder and to see a better deal for those who are not benefit recipients but nevertheless work hard at the bottom end of the labour market so that they have justice, too, I believe that a 5.2% uprating sends entirely the wrong message. It also sends the wrong message to me as a believer in introducing serious incentives to work rather than incentives to receive benefits.

Stephen Lloyd: It is a pleasure to speak in this debate because, unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Mr Ruffley), I am extremely proud that despite the chronic economic challenges that we face, the Government have uprated by 5.2%. I am what is termed an orange book Liberal, so I am fairly hawkish on the budget, but clearly not as hawkish as my hon. Friend. To me, when things are so difficult and so many people are being squeezed, including those in work, and when people in the public sector, because of the austerity measures, are not getting their salaries uprated, it is even more important that the coalition Government should stick to their guns and uprate pensions by 5.2%. That is laudable. To me, personally, it is even more important that they uprated the disability living allowance and jobseeker’s allowance by 5.2%. I am utterly supportive of the Work programme to get people back into work, but I am bullish about the fact that it is terribly important that people who receive DLA, JSA and so on should receive the additional uprating. It demonstrates the coalition Government’s commitment, which I believe to be genuinely profound, to try to make this as fair as possible, irrespective of the economic challenges.
	To be in a position in which we can say that we have uprated pensions by the highest ever figure in, frankly, the worst economic crisis since the great depression, let alone the second world war, is something of which I am very proud and of which the coalition Government should be very proud.

David Ruffley: Let me be clear: although we all welcome the generous uprating for pensioners, does my hon. Friend, like me, draw a distinction between the uplift for pensioners, which we welcome, and the fact that there
	has also been a commensurate over-compensation for non-pension benefit recipients relative to the working poor?

Stephen Lloyd: I thank my hon. Friend for that question, but I disagree as I think that it is even more important that people in receipt of JSA and DLA at this time, when things are so difficult, are seen, shown and proven by the Government to be in a difficult position through no fault of their own. We want to show that they are entitled to that extra uprate. I appreciate that my hon. Friend and I might differ ideologically on that, but I hope that he accepts that my belief, although it is different, is profound.
	On pensions and the £5.30, I remember canvassing in Eastbourne a few years ago when the then Chancellor of the Exchequer had just introduced the 75p rise. Not only were the pensioners I spoke to absolutely incandescent with rage but they did not understand. A lot of the people I spoke to genuinely believed, rightly or wrongly, that the then Chancellor was on their side—I respect that totally—and that is what shocked them. They just could not believe that such a derisory payment could be made. It is therefore very encouraging that at this time, in such an economic crisis, we are sticking to the triple lock and CPI, and doing it at an uprate of £5.30, which is about £21.80 or whatever a month, compared with what it was before.
	However, I have some frustrations, which are shared by the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton). It is very hard for the coalition Government to get the information out there about the uprate on disability living allowance. My hon. Friend the Minister knows that I have lobbied fiercely to him personally that that uprate should happen, but as hon. Friends have mentioned today, one would not think from the overwhelming response we have had in our inboxes that we had stuck to our guns on that. I pay tribute to the coalition Government on this issue: they have done the right thing.
	On CPI and RPI, I have a lot of time for the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) on pensions generally. He brings a very good and forensic brain to this whole area, and I listened carefully to what he said. To be honest, I think he made some good points. There will be years when the challenge concerning the swapping from RPI to CPI will be greater, but equally there will be years when it is lesser. I know that the Government’s figures are for a 20-year period and that, for the average pensioner, the figure will be equal to £13,000 more, over and above what it would have been with RPI. I am getting so many conflicting details and reports on this, and I have sort of decided that, even though I understand where the Government are coming from with CPI change, we should stand back a wee bit and see how the figures develop over the next few years. Certainly, in the Minister’s wind-up I would be grateful for a little more detail about the pluses of CPI and about the £13,000 figure. I would find that very helpful, as, I am sure, would many of my colleagues on the Liberal Democrat Benches. What I do accept about CPI is that it strips out the mortgage side of things. I totally understand that because, certainly in my constituency, most elderly constituents tend to own their own homes, it is a more accurate and stable indicator. However, I would be grateful for a bit more detail on that.
	Finally, and I have to be a bit partisan here, I find extraordinary the Opposition’s blanket opposition to CPI, with no caveats at all, because I know that the Labour party is introducing CPI for all its own staff’s pensions. I am a little confused about some of the rationale there. I know that others want to speak, so let me conclude by saying that I am delighted by the move on pensions regarding the triple lock, which the Minister will know was one of the Liberal Democrats’ key manifesto promises at the election. I am equally delighted that we stuck to our guns on that issue. There was quite a lot of battling and lobbying inside Government, as one would expect in a coalition, but it was all done with great courtesy. I am delighted that the 5.2% is not only in relation to pensions but is also for some other benefits, such as DLA, jobseeker’s allowance, carer’s allowance and attendance allowance, as I have already discussed.
	We in the coalition are determined to get through this mess with the robust austerity programme. I entirely concur with my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds on this. It is the only way we can get through this; otherwise, the bond markets would kill us—we both know that—and that would ramp up interest rates. I am delighted that despite all the challenges, we are trying profoundly, and as well and as fairly as we can, to ensure that everyone in the country has to step up to the plate. That means that, yes, we have the Work programme for people who are out of work, but it is also about trying to ensure that people in that situation get a good uprate. That demonstrates that when it comes to the facts, by contrast with the hyperbole one sees in the media, the coalition Government are determined to do things right and fairly.
	Thanks to the decision on these upratings, this is one of the times since I have been elected that I have felt genuinely proud to be a Member on the coalition Government side. I really mean that. That decision is entirely commendable and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

Gregg McClymont: I shall not detain the House for long, I hope. We have had an interesting debate, which was begun by the Minister and my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms), who discussed some of the technicalities and complexities of uprating. I shall confine my remarks largely to the most controversial of the motions—the motion on the draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2012.
	The contributions from Back Benchers have illuminated some of the issues at hand. The hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton), who is no longer in her place, made a heartfelt defence of what she described as the coalition’s sense of national mission. “Our great nation is in great peril,” she declared, although I am glad she cautioned that she is not doing cartwheels. I would never have made such a claim. She suggested that there has been a constant and very upsetting misrepresentation of the Government’s wider policy in this area, which she sought to correct by sharing the experience in her constituency. Not content with her party being in government, she was also keen to give the Opposition the benefit of her wisdom on how they should proceed on these and other matters.
	My hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark) emphasised the great concern there is outside the House regarding the permanent switch from RPI to CPI and declared her support for an immediate return to RPI indexing. She emphasised that CPI indexing means a smaller rise for pensioners and out-of-work citizens over time. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham referred to the 0.7% average difference between an RPI and a CPI measure and my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran emphasised from the Back Benches that if we had been using the RPI measure this year, the increase would have been 5.6% rather than 5.2%. She set out the real cumulative impact that the switch in indexing will have over time on the pensions and benefits of some of the more vulnerable members of our society.
	The hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds (Mr Ruffley), in what he described as a spirit of honest inquiry, set out some challenges for those on the Government Front Bench. He emphasised the public spending implications of a 5.2% rise based on a CPI measure in September. If I understood his argument correctly, he would have preferred to use either a six month figure, which he calculates would save the Treasury £780 million, or an average over 12 months until April 2012 using a forecast for this current quarter. That would have created an overall indexing figure of 4.4% and saved £1 billion, according to him. He put that in context by explaining that the real cost of living increase in the coming year will be 2.8%, which, if applied, would save the Treasury £3 billion, based on his calculations.

David Ruffley: The hon. Gentleman is reciting the argument brilliantly, but those are not my figures; they are my figures checked with the House of Commons Library.

Gregg McClymont: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that clarification. As a public spending hawk, as he described himself, he would much prefer one of those figures to be used, although he indicated that pensioners should receive 4.4% and those out of work should receive 2.8%, which would lead to an overall saving of £1.7 billion, based on the figures he cites. I am sure that the Minister will be happy to deal with this matter. The hon. Gentleman also emphasises the overall issue of work incentives. If people are in work but seeing a real squeeze on their incomes and living standards, in his view there is an issue of work incentives.
	The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd), from the Back Benches of the second coalition party, described himself as hawkish, but not as hawkish at the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds. He was particularly pleased that DLA, GSA and other out-of-work benefits are receiving the full uprating and described the pension increase as the highest ever—perhaps I can come back to that later. He praised the shadow Minister in particular for his work on pensions. Alas, I suspect that he was referring to my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, rather than me. My right hon. Friend is indeed an impressive parliamentarian, and I join the hon. Gentleman in his praise. The hon. Gentleman also said that he had sympathy with Labour’s position on RPI but was prepared to reflect over the coming years on how CPI operates and is keen for the Minister to give a little more detail on how CPI will operate.
	The Minister set out the Government’s position clearly: they are spending money via this uprating to protect some of the most vulnerable in society. There will be a CPI increase of 5.2% on the basic state pension and the additional state pension—SERPS—and a 5.2% increase in most out-of-work benefits. They will also raise the pension credit minimum income guarantee above earnings to 3.9%, rather than 2.8%, to be paid for, as was discussed earlier, by raising the threshold for those eligible for savings credit by 8.4% and reducing the maximum savings credit payable per week from £20.52 to £18.54.
	The Minister also set out his view that CPI is a better measure of pensioners’ cost of living. That is contestable, as the debate so far has suggested. In particular, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham raised the issue of housing costs, among other things, and the Minister has undertaken to look at the work of the Consumer Prices Advisory Committee on integrating housing costs into the CPI index.
	The hon. Members for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) and for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) contributed to the debate in interventions. They noted that, if we are looking at the cost of living for pensioners, we must emphasise the cut in winter fuel allowance in the round and heating costs more widely. Those are things that the Minister will be aware of as he goes forward.
	The Minister and the hon. Member for Eastbourne emphasised that this was the largest real-terms increase in the pension for about 10 years. There was an interesting exchange between the Minister and my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham on what exactly that amounted to. The Minister’s explanation, as I understood it, was that by the time the increases work through the system to the recipients, inflation will have fallen. My right hon. Friend rightly suggested that the Government should perhaps not take too much credit for inflation being so high and then falling—perhaps that was a quirk of timing, rather than the result of Government policy.
	However, it is clear that, with a Backbench Business Committee debate on the switch from RPI to CPI scheduled for next week, this remains a live issue, and I am sure that it will be articulated in greater detail next week. As my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham indicated, the official Opposition could have looked closely at a temporary switch to CPI, but we cannot support a permanent switch from RPI when there is so much doubt about CPI as an accurate measure of the cost of living. There is merit in an earnings underpinning, but it has been noted more than once that in the first year of its existence the Minister picked his own lock, so to speak, and there was a greater increase in the state pension than there would have been with the triple lock. Although there is merit in an earnings underpinning, the fact remains that if RPI had been used last year and this year the increase would have been greater.
	That said, and given that we cannot support a permanent switch from RPI, we support certain things in these uprating orders, but we cannot support the Government today.

Steve Webb: I am grateful to all hon. Members who have taken part in this debate. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) deserves particular credit for being here throughout and not making a speech, but we are grateful to her for her interventions. I shall respond to the key points that have been made. I was going to respond first to the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms), but I shall do so at the end if he has time to come back and join us.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) has also been surprised by the timing of the winding-up speeches. I am grateful for her contribution and her important point about the significance of the take-up of these benefits. It is all very well us sitting here debating the rates, but if people do not claim the benefits, it is a slightly academic exercise. My hon. Friend was right to highlight the importance of our making sure that the benefits are taken up— [ Interruption. ] I am delighted that she is rejoining us. I was welcoming her comments about benefit take-up, and today we have published the latest take-up figures for income-related benefits in the final year of the previous Government. They demonstrate that in the benefits under discussion many billions of pounds go unclaimed, so she is absolutely right that we should do all we can to encourage people to claim them.
	My hon. Friend will have seen in these uprating orders that we are trying to shift the balance towards the benefits that people really do claim, such as the state pension, and even within pension credit we have loaded the balance towards the guarantee credit, which is more likely than the savings credit to be taken up. On today’s figures, for those who are entitled to savings credit only, the take-up rate is less than 50%, so it is vital that when we set benefit rates we ensure that people claim them. I was grateful to her for her insight on that point, on the certainty that the triple lock gives pensioners and on the fact that we have stuck to it despite difficult economic times, and I can assure her that we will continue to do so.
	The hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark) was entirely straight with the House, saying that she does not agree with the CPI measure or with her Front Benchers. On the issue of whether that is controversial, of course it is, but all I was saying is that I last joined the National Pensioners Convention at a time when no decision had been made, so it is worth winding the House back to that point.
	In the press there was speculation that we might introduce a freeze—I shall return in a second to the points made by the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds (Mr Ruffley)—or use a forecast, a moving average or anything to get the number down. At that point, I was staggered to go to an NPC event and be—“harangued” would be uncharitable—forcibly encouraged to deliver 5.2%. Having seen that delivered, I would, if I were the NPC, then demand 5.6%. I understand that, but it is worth reminding ourselves of the pressure that the Government were under to do less, so 5.2% was an entirely decent settlement in the current economic climate.
	The hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran made an important point about the cumulative effect, which was her key theme. She made an important point also about working age, but to focus on pensioners I
	note that there are two cumulative effects going on at the same time: one is the triple lock and the other is CPI, which applies to additional pensions. The question is, which is the greater?
	The hon. Lady mentioned someone with an occupational pension of £10,000 a year, but from memory—this is only from memory—the average occupational pension in payment is about £4,000 a year, so her example is more than double the typical, and our estimate, looking just at the cumulative impact over a retirement of the basic pension, is where the £13,000 figure comes from. Looking purely and cumulatively at the triple lock, because the earnings figure is normally more than RPI, we find that people will get more through that. CPI is on average less than RPI, so on the additional pension they will get less.
	The cumulative effective of the two is beneficial to those with lower occupational pensions, but less beneficial—indeed, there are net losses—to those with higher occupational pensions. So the hon. Lady is probably right: someone on a £10,000 occupational pension will get smaller net increases and someone on a £3,000 occupational pension will get bigger net increases overall. That is taking account of the two policies. She is right that these policies have a cumulative effect. For example, on the CPI link for local housing allowance, the Government have said that they will continue with that for two years and review the position having done so. I am grateful to the hon. Lady for drawing the House’s attention to the Chair of the Select Committee’s unfortunate accident. I am sure that we all wish her our very best for a speedy recovery.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds observed that the September 2011 figure was a peak. He said that by the time we get to April 2012 it will already be a bit out of date and that by the end of 2012-13 it will be 18 months out of date. This involves two separate questions: first, whether we should use forecasts or historical figures; and secondly, what we should have done this year. The VAT increase in January 2011 was a significant driver of the 5.2% figure. Had we, for example, chosen to look at inflation only over certain months, or chosen to switch to the future just at the precise point when something quite big happened historically, people might have queried our sincerity. At times in the late 1970s and ’80s, some Governments switched to and fro between forecasts and historical figures, and there was a sense that that had nothing to do with compensating for inflation but was merely trying to find a low number. It is important that we have a system for compensating for inflation that we stick to and a separate system of judgments on what the country can afford, whereby if we cannot afford 5.2%, we should say so. We should not try to think of a period that will give us a lower number. My hon. Friend is right that if we had used a lower inflation measure we could have saved a lot of money, but that is the answer to a different question.

David Ruffley: The burden of my argument did not relate especially to last autumn’s figure but to the principle of whether, for a 12-month period in which one is seeking by an uprating to compensate benefit recipients for the cost of living, one should use a figure, whatever it is, that is six months’ prior—that is, the September figure.

Steve Webb: Indeed. If one could obtain pretty robust and independently accepted forecasts—although that prompts at least two questions—there would have to be a decision about whether one used “forecast, forecast, forecast” or “history, history, history”. In terms of the orders, I am concerned with the decision that we had to make about this year. Had we switched from history to forecast just at the point when forecast was helping us, I think that we would have been criticised. With an historian sitting opposite me, I hesitate to say that no one can argue about history, but at least there is some certainty in the past. We now have the Office for Budget Responsibility, and we have the Bank of England, so we could get an objective future figure. However, if we did that and the future started to turn out differently, there would be a lot of pressure with people saying, “You forecast this figure but it is turning out to be more”. There would also be pressure to make in-year corrections, whereas nobody can argue about history, and that gives us a certain amount of certainty. Having said that, I understand my hon. Friend’s comment about the point of indexation being to match the inflation experience.
	My hon. Friend talked about in-work and out-of-work benefits and the relative position of pensioners, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd). I remind him that we have different approaches for pensioners and for non-pensioners. The statutory position for non-pensioners is generally CPI or, in some cases, discretionary, while our policy for pensioners is triple lock. We are in very strange times, with CPI, RPI and earnings going all over the place. In more normal times, when earnings rise faster than prices, pensioners will generally get bigger increases.
	I entirely agree with my hon. Friend about the burdens on the low-paid. That is why we are keen to raise the tax-free personal allowance, among other measures. Nobody would say that being in a low-paid job is a comfortable place to be, especially with pay freezes. On average, people affected by the tax credits changes are on incomes of some £17,000 a year, but someone who is drawing employment and support allowance is on an income of about £3,500 a year. It is a question of how much scope the person has to accommodate and absorb these inflation shocks, and that was the judgment that we made. Most of the time, earnings rise faster than prices, and the gap between jobseeker’s allowance and low-paid people’s wages is increasing year after year. In the past 20 years, it has probably increased 17 or 18 times. In general, that will be the sort of outcome that we get. Of course, as soon as we introduce universal credit, that will institutionalise the gap between out-of-work and in-work benefits in the way that I think he wants to see.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne welcomed the 5.2% increase, particularly for working-age disabled people. I am grateful for his representations on that. He is right that we need to protect people who are not able to work. He asked about the evolution of CPI and RPI. Just to be clear, the £13,000 figure was reached by comparing our triple lock, based on OBR-type assumptions, with the RPI policy of the past 30 years. We asked what somebody retiring on a full pension this year would have got had RPI been rolled forward and what they
	would get under the triple lock according to realistic assumptions about earnings and prices. The difference between the two is a cumulative £13,000. That figure has changed. I used to say that it was £15,000, then the OBR changed its numbers and I said that it was £10,000. We now say that it is £13,000. The figure will change, but over time earnings tend to grow faster than RPI, so the basic pension will tend to grow faster than it would have done. That is something that we need to communicate over the coming years.
	I wrote down a bizarre phrase that was used by the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms). He said that the triple lock “undermines pensions uprating”. People can check his speech, but that is what I thought he said. That is nonsense. The triple lock reinforces pensions uprating because it always gives pensioners the best deal between CPI, earnings and 2.5%.

Stephen Timms: Will the Minister give way?

Steve Webb: I will in a second. Clearly, those numbers all fluctuate relative to each other. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can confirm whether he disputes the fact that £13,000 extra compared with the policy that his Government adopted for 13 years is the result of the triple lock?

Stephen Timms: I want to focus on the year ahead. Will the Minister confirm that the triple lock will deliver a lower uprating than would RPI?

Steve Webb: It is interesting that the Labour party has said that it does not support the orders, which include a CPI increase, and yet is not going to vote against them. I assume that it will not vote against them as there are only about four Labour Members here.
	It is unclear what the right hon. Gentleman is saying. He does not think that there should be an RPI increase. Whether RPI is higher than CPI this year could be a debating point. Of course RPI is higher, as he well knows and as we all know. However, he is not in favour of using RPI this year, but favours a temporary move to CPI. I am not sure what debating point he is trying to make.
	The right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Gregg McClymont) asked about CPIH, which is CPI including the housing costs of owner-occupiers. We are entirely open to looking at that. We are not going to say that we will definitely use it, because we do not know what it is, what it will include or what its properties will be. It would be premature of us to sign up to a prices index that we have not seen and that has not even been invented yet. We are entirely open to considering whether that is the right measure to use when the Secretary of State decides the general increase in the cost of living for September 2013, which is when it will presumably happen. I have said that consistently.
	The right hon. Member for East Ham asked why we had increased the standard minimum guarantee by 3.9%. That is the cash pass-through. We have given the basic state pension £5.30. We wanted people on the minimum guarantee to get at least £5.30. It turns out that it will be £5.35. That is 3.9%.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked about the savings from the savings credit change. We over-indexed the guarantee credit compared with statute, so it is 3.9% rather than 2.8%. That cost us £200 million, which we have to find by cutting back the savings credit. There is therefore no net saving on pension credit as a whole, but rather redistribution from the savings credit to the guarantee credit. I hope that that answers his question.
	The right hon. Gentleman said that the Government had been secretive about the link between the local housing allowance and CPI, and about the freeze in April 2012. I accept that not many people listen to our debates in the House, but I announced that measure from the Dispatch Box on 6 December 2011. I think that he might even have been here. I said:
	“As part of the preparation for this change, we need to fix LHA rates, to establish a baseline… As the new cycle for uprating LHA will be annual, we have decided that the baseline should be one year ahead of the first uprating event. Therefore, LHA rates will be fixed from April 2012.”—[Official Report, 6 December 2011; Vol. 537, c. 164.]
	The measure was therefore announced before Christmas. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman had his mind on other things at the time.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked why the deductions from heating and so on in the social security order are relatively high. The deductions are linked to the component indices of CPI. Those things have gone up by more than inflation. Each year, we link them to what has actually happened to the cost of those items. Therefore, had the costs been lower, we would have used a lower figure. That is just for consistency.
	I stand before the House having just announced £6.6 billion of spending. With due respect to the hon. Members who have attended the debate, it has not received a huge amount of scrutiny, but as was said during the debate, that is because people overwhelmingly think we have done the right thing. We have recognised that pensioners, who will get two thirds of the money, should benefit from the triple lock, that the poorest pensioners should be protected, that disabled people should be protected from inflation and that people who are out of work through no fault of their own should not suffer a cut in their real living standards. It is therefore my great pleasure to commend the orders to the House.
	Question put and agreed  to .
	Resolved ,
	That the draft Pensions Act 2008 (Abolition of Protected Rights) (Consequential Amendments) (No. 2) (Amendment) Order 2012, which was laid before this House on 30 January, be approved.

Pensions

Resolved ,
	That the draft Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2012, which was laid before this House on 30 January, be approved.—(Steve Webb.)

Social Security

Resolved ,
	That the draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2012, which was laid before this House on 30 January, be approved.—(Steve Webb.)

Business without Debate
	 — 
	Delegated legislation

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

European Union

That the draft European Union (Definition of Treaties) (Second Agreement amending the Cotonou Agreement) Order 2011, which was laid before this House on 19 July 2011, be approved.—(Mr Dunne.)
	Question agreed to.

Sittings of the House (20 and 23 March)

Lindsay Hoyle: As announced yesterday, the three amendments in the name of Mr Philip Hollobone have been selected.

David Heath: I beg to move,
	That—
	(1) there shall be no sitting in Westminster Hall on Tuesday 20 March; and
	(2) this House shall sit on Friday 23 March.
	On Tuesday, the House agreed to a series of Adjournments up until January 2013, which my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House set out in the business statement on 9 February. I think the whole House will agree that it is for the benefit of the House that Members, staff and the House authorities are given as much certainty as possible of recesses, as far in advance as possible, to enable the effective scheduling of hon. Members’ other work and major work projects in the House, among other things.
	If passed, the motion will achieve two things in relation to the forthcoming business of the House in March. First, it provides that there will be no Westminster Hall business on Tuesday 20 March. It will not have escaped Members’ notice that that is the date scheduled for the attendance of the two Houses on Her Majesty in Westminster Hall for the presentation of Humble Addresses, as my right hon. Friend announced in the business statement on 19 January. I am sure Members will recognise the need to suspend regular Westminster Hall sittings on that day, which is entirely in line with precedent.
	Secondly, the motionprovides that the House will sit on Friday 23 March. That proposal was announced in the business statement on 9 February, together with our reasoning that it would allow the continuation of the Budget debate while still providing time for the Backbench Business Committee to schedule a debate on the day before the recess had it wanted to, as has been past practice.

Peter Bone: My hon. Friend is making the Government’s position clear. Will he confirm to the House that all dates announced are always provisional? The House agreed to the dates set for Adjournments on a “forthwith” motion, which could not be debated or amended. This debate is therefore the first opportunity that we have had to debate and amend a motion.

David Heath: Obviously, “forthwith” motions can always be objected to if hon. Members have problems with them. I can only assume from the silence when that motion was moved that there were no objections. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that all future business is always provisional until we get to the point at which it is no longer provisional, and it is open to the House to change its mind. However, I say again that it is very helpful to have some certainty, not only for Members, who have busy diaries to arrange, but for the staff of the
	House, who will also wish to make arrangements. I believe it is good practice to try to provide that certainty as far as possible.
	I understand that my hon. Friends the Members for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) and for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) do not entirely share what I had hoped might be a consensus on the matter. They have tabled amendments showing plainly that they do not share that consensus and we will discuss them today. I also note the point of order made by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) on Tuesday. He was very keen to make his point then, but perhaps not so keen to make it today when we are actually having the debate. His absence will be regretted by everybody. He clearly felt very strongly about the motion but is otherwise engaged today.
	The Opposition sought to amend the motion on Tuesday in order that the House would sit on Wednesday 28 March. Let me make it plain that the Government are not opposed to sittings on Wednesdays, but the proposal for the House to rise on Tuesday 27 March was announced when the calendar was last issued in October 2011. My hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough made the point that the calendar is always provisional because it is always subject to the progress of business. But my point, again, is that the Government are conscious that we have announced recess dates and Members and staff will have made arrangements for the Easter recess. It would now be inconvenient, at least for some, to change them.
	I have heard reports that the Opposition—laughably in my opinion—are accusing the Prime Minister of running scared from Prime Minister’s questions, which is a triumph of hope over experience on their part. They say that that is why we have scheduled the Friday and not the following Wednesday. As I said, that is an entirely laughable proposition and it is totally without basis in evidence.
	I have had the benefit of considering the evidence and it might help if I enlighten the House on it. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House perhaps alluded to some of this information in business questions. The frequency of Prime Minister’s questions per sitting day has risen in this Session compared with the last Session of the previous Administration, so there is no reasonable accusation that we are manipulating the calendar so that there are fewer Prime Minister’s questions sessions.
	It is also true that the current Prime Minister is turning up to Prime Minister’s questions more often than his predecessor, who was absent from the Dispatch Box for Prime Minister’s questions twice as often as the current Prime Minister has been. We know the record of the previous Prime Minister—I think I coined the expression “McCavity” to describe him, because where there was trouble, he was always somewhere else—but nevertheless, for the Opposition to suggest that the current Prime Minister is avoiding his commitments is absolute nonsense. The Prime Minister has made more statements to the House per sitting day than his predecessor and has spent more than 30 hours at the Dispatch Box in so doing. He takes his responsibilities to the House
	very seriously, and I am afraid I have very little time for claims that are posturing nonsense of no substance whatever.
	It might be helpful if I inform the House that there is a precedent for the proposal to sit on a Friday to allow the continuation of the Budget debate before a recess. We do not have to delve too far back to find it—it happened under the previous Government, during my period in the House and that of many right hon. and hon. Members, on 11 April 2003, just nine years ago and a passing moment in the time scale of Parliament.
	During points of order on Tuesday, the hon. Member for Rhondda, who I again note is not yet in his place, asked what business may take place on a Friday sitting and specifically about statements and urgent questions. As we know, the Government rightly remain accountable through statements and urgent questions on a sitting Friday, but we have not the slightest intention of changing Standing Orders to allow for oral questions on that day, which would require wholesale changes to the rota. That is entirely in line with precedent, including under the previous Administration—on Friday 11 April 2003, in similar circumstances, no oral question session took place. It is a wonder that the hon. Member for Rhondda, having been a business manger in his time, now takes a very different view of what should happen in the House from that which he proposed from the Dispatch Box previously.
	Amendments (a) and (b), tabled in the names of the hon. Members for Kettering and for Wellingborough, would establish sittings in Westminster Hall on Monday 19 March and Friday 23 March. There is a problem with this and I ask the hon. Members to address it if they speak to their amendments. In the absence of any other changes to Standing Orders, it would fall to the Government to nominate business in Westminster Hall for those two days. There are colleagues of mine in government who might appreciate the generosity of these amendments from two notable members of the Backbench Business Committee. They have obviously recognised that, at the moment, the Government have no control over the time allocation in Westminster Hall, and wish to correct this anomaly.

Peter Bone: Unusually, the Deputy Leader of the House is struggling to think of things to do on these days. We heard in business questions the need for international women’s day to be debated. That seems an appropriate debate to have, and everybody would be very happy.

David Heath: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is right that everybody would be very happy, but the fact remains that the Backbench Business Committee, of which he is such a distinguished member, now has responsibility for scheduling debates on those days. If his amendments were successful, these days would not be available to the Committee, so it simply could not be done under the terms of the Wright Committee proposals. That is the sadness of what is obviously a well-intentioned thought on his part. The Standing Orders get in the way, and we are as bound by the Standing Orders as any Member.

Philip Hollobone: I am surprised that the Deputy Leader of the House would struggle to think of suitable business to take up the time in Westminster Hall on either the Monday or the Friday were the
	amendments to be passed, because today in business questions 37 subjects were suggested for debate. I am sure that the Government could pick from that huge list two or three suitable topics on which the House could hold the Government to account.

David Heath: I am sure that we could, but that would be to return to the dark ages when the Government decided what was debated in the House, rather than the Backbench Business Committee, and I do not want to do that. I am a great believer in the Backbench Business Committee and in the need for us to continue making progress towards a House business committee in due course. I do not want to return to the time when the Executive decided what the House could debate. The idea that Ministers should retake possession of Westminster Hall and decide what the House should debate on those days on the basis of their prejudices and requirements rather than of what is properly decided by the Backbench Business Committee is wholly retrogressive. So I will hold firm to the principle behind the Backbench Business Committee and the Wright Committee reforms that we have put in place. I certainly do not think that we should move away from that principle without the benefit of a more thorough inquiry.
	The Procedure Committee recently reported on new and inventive ways in which Westminster Hall could be used. It is absolutely right that the House, in the future, be given an opportunity to consider those proposals in more details. There are colleagues in government who would be delighted to take up the hon. Gentlemen’s suggestion of giving more power to the Executive, and at some point a Minister from the Dispatch Box might ask for their support and would be grateful for it when that time comes. But it will not be this Minister on this day.

Peter Bone: I am grateful for the Deputy Leader of the House’s honesty on that point. Will he name those members of the Government, please?

David Heath: No, because I was being entirely speculative, and idle speculation is not something that we should indulge in from the Dispatch Box, as the hon. Gentleman will readily recognise. As I have said, my view is that we must keep to the reforms that we have put in place and not move backwards.

Philip Hollobone: I am struggling to identify the principle that the Deputy Leader of the House is purporting to uphold, because he is effectively telling the House that it is better for the Government to scrap completely a day’s business in Westminster Hall than to decide what business should take place on an alternative day.

David Heath: I have to say that days are scrapped in this House for all sorts of reasons. However, as a matter of fact, we sit more often, and as the hon. Gentleman will recognise, we have provided a huge range of opportunities—more than before—for Members to have their say. However, there are times when the House is not sitting—when public holidays occur, for instance—and we do not automatically say, “Well, we’ll sit on the Sunday, because the Monday is no longer available.” Instead, we look at the calendar of the House as a whole and we ensure that there are ample opportunities. The principle—I will set it out again—is that the Executive
	should not decide what happens in Westminster Hall. That is the position that we are in, and to move away from it without careful consideration of why and how we should do so would be a mistake.
	I know that the hon. Gentleman recognises the progress that we have made. He is trying to ensure that the Government are properly held to account, and he is absolutely right in that, as is his hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough. He will recognise that the Government have already introduced elected Chairs of Select Committees, Back Benchers having control of the agenda through the Backbench Business Committee and extra time for the scrutiny of Bills on Report—all things that improve the scrutiny of Ministers by Back Benchers. That is absolutely right, and the balance has genuinely shifted towards Parliament and away from the Executive. I want to maintain that.
	The hon. Member for Kettering and his colleague are putting forward proposals with the best of intentions, and I understand that. However, I do not think they are either necessary or desirable at this point, although I am certainly prepared to go away and listen to the points that they make and consider how we can best accommodate proper scrutiny, as I always have done. I commend the hon. Gentlemen on the spirit of their amendments; equally, I will ask the House to reject them if they are pressed. I have set out what the purpose of the House should be in agreeing to the motion before us and in rejecting the amendments. I commend the motion to the House.

Angela Smith: The motion before us gives the Government the opportunity—or the right—to table the extra day’s debate required for the Budget. In tabling the motion, the Government had a clear choice: they could have extended business to Wednesday 28 March, but instead they have chosen to extend it in the preceding week, to Friday 23 March.
	The first point to make about today’s motion is that it clearly illustrates the Government’s incompetent management of the business of the House, in that it was only last October—when it was absolutely known that the Budget statement would be made on Wednesday 21 March—that the recess from Tuesday 27 March was determined. The incompetence of the Government, in being unable to arrange their business in the required time for the debate on the Budget statement, is staggering. The fact that we have to be here today, debating and putting right the Government’s incompetence and their mistake in timetabling the Budget business, is staggering. However, even given the situation that they are in, the Government have not decided to put the start of the recess back by one day, but have, in effect, chosen to go for a Friday sitting.
	Given the Government’s incompetence in scheduling business, there is a further question that begs to be answered. Why are they not making the more obvious choice of extending the business to Wednesday 28 March? Is it because the Prime Minister does not like being held to account in this Chamber? Is he trying to avoid Prime Minister’s questions? The evidence is crystal clear. An analysis of recent parliamentary recess dates shows that the House of Commons has risen on a Tuesday, rather
	than the more usual Thursday, on 63% of occasions since the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr Cameron) became Prime Minister.

Brandon Lewis: If that is really the case, how does the hon. Lady account for the fact that the present Prime Minister has spent more time at the Dispatch Box than the previous Prime Minister did?

Angela Smith: It has to be said that the previous Prime Minister faced up to his global leadership responsibilities in the face of the biggest recession in this country for 60 years, unlike the present Prime Minister, whose global leadership involves standing on the sidelines and walking away from negotiations. Our previous Prime Minister played his part and led the world in showing the way out of the previous crisis.
	This Government’s unwillingness to be held to account is becoming more apparent by the day. First, they rushed through the Commons a number of highly controversial pieces of legislation in the early days of this Parliament, denying this Chamber the right to proper scrutiny of their provisions.

Peter Bone: The hon. Lady is making a fair point, but it is one that could equally have been made about the last Government. Is it the Opposition’s view that we should now get rid of programme motions?

Angela Smith: That is not necessarily the case. What we are discussing today is the need for competent scheduling of the business of the House, rather than last-minute motions on the Floor of the House as a result of the Government getting themselves into a hole in regard to the time they have allowed for debate.
	The Bills to which I have just referred are now bogged down in the Lords, with the detested Health and Social Care Bill alone requiring more than 1,000 Government amendments so far. Furthermore, we have Ministers regularly ignoring the rights of this House over important announcements about Government policy. Many Members will recall the occasions on which it has been necessary to point out to the House that a Minister has yet again briefed the media, before briefing the House, on an important matter.
	Now, we have a Prime Minister who will apparently do almost anything to avoid being held to account at PMQs. The House is therefore entitled to ask why the Prime Minister is so reluctant to account to his peers for his actions. This is, after all, the man whose self-confidence led him to say, live on air, “Bring it on!” when asked in 2009 whether he was looking forward to the general election. This is the man who wanted to “Fire up the Quattro”, and who gave voters the clear impression that he was a man who meant business and knew what he was about.

Brandon Lewis: Given the hon. Lady’s comments about the Prime Minister attending Prime Minister’s questions, what does that tell us about the previous Prime Minister, who spent about half as much time at PMQs as the present one?

Angela Smith: I think the hon. Gentleman asked that question only a few minutes ago—[Hon. Members: “You didn’t answer.”] The question was answered.

Lyn Brown: I am moved to suggest to my hon. Friend that one of the reasons that the previous Prime Minister felt able to leave the Wednesday Question Time to his deputy was that he trusted her.

Angela Smith: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. That is another reason for my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) finding it impossible, on occasion, to get to the Dispatch Box. He gave global leadership in the credit crunch, and he trusted his deputy. Whether this current Prime Minister trusts his deputy is open to question.
	All the evidence suggests the opposite of what we have heard, and that our Prime Minister is a leader who cannot get his facts straight and who is increasingly running scared of being held to account on the detail of his Government’s policies. With your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will illustrate this point with examples. Let us take, for instance, what the Prime Minister claimed only the other week:
	“The proportion of police officers on the front line is up”.—[Official Report, 8 February 2012; Vol. 540, c. 295.]
	That is a misleading claim, if ever there was one. Of course, his reference was to the proportions of front-line officers rather than their overall numbers. Thus, where perhaps 12 front-line officers were assisted in their work by six support staff, there might now be only six front-line officers and only two support staff. The proportion would be higher, but the number of front-line officers would have been cut by 50%. In the end, the Prime Minister will not be able to continue to defend the line that front-line policing is being protected when budgets are being cut by 20%. About 16,000 police officers are likely to lose their jobs, and the Prime Minister knows that he will be called to account for that at Prime Minister’s Questions.
	The Prime Minister has, of course, already been called to account at the Dispatch Box by the Leader of the Opposition for his Government’s disastrous Health and Social Care Bill. Only yesterday, we witnessed in this Chamber the Prime Minister thrashing around, desperately trying to trade insults and to deploy soundbites in an attempt to deflect attention from his unpopular and unwanted top-down reorganisation of the NHS.
	Two weeks earlier, just before the recess, the Prime Minister claimed at Prime Minister’s Question Time that 100,000 more patients are being treated every month. It was possible to make that claim, however, only if one compared May 2010 with November 2011. If one compares May 2010 to May 2011 and November 2010 to November 2011, one finds that the figures are, in fact, static. Equally, the Prime Minister claimed that there were 4,000 extra doctors since the election. That is true, of course, but it is not something that he can take credit for. After all, it takes between five and seven years to train a doctor and the extra numbers are therefore a legacy of the previous Labour Government.
	So there we have it—a Prime Minister who knows that his cavalier approach to answering the questions posed to him by this House is under pressure, who knows that his slapdash approach to Prime Minister’s questions is being increasingly exposed, thereby revealing
	him and his Government as incompetent and not up to the task of taking this country through the very challenging times in which it finds itself. No wonder this Government want to avoid Prime Minister’s questions wherever possible. It is the one occasion every week when the spotlight is on everything they do, and they increasingly worry that they will be found wanting. In the interests of accountability and democracy, we oppose the motion.

Philip Hollobone: I beg to move amendment (a), after ‘(1)’, insert
	‘there shall be a sitting in Westminster Hall on Monday 19 March between half-past nine o’clock and two o’clock;’

Lindsay Hoyle: With this it will be convenient to take the following:
	Amendment (b), at end add
	‘, and there shall be a sitting in Westminster Hall between half-past nine o’clock and two o’clock.’.
	Amendment (c), at end add
	‘and, notwithstanding the decision of the House of 21 February, on Wednesday 28 March.’.

Philip Hollobone: I give notice that I shall endeavour to press amendments (a) and (c) to a Division, so the Whips can get on their BlackBerrys and signal the troops that their presence in the Chamber will be required later. I do so more in disappointment than anger because I thought that the Leader and Deputy Leader of the House were bigger men than this. On this occasion, much against their normal form, they have shown a lack of imagination and a lack of innovation. Although they do a tremendous job for this House, it is at times like this that we gently need to remind them that they are the Leader and the Deputy Leader of the House of Commons, and that they are here to represent the interests of Back Benchers as well as those of Her Majesty’s Government. On occasions such as this, there is a simple solution to ensure that the accountability of Government is maintained.
	The Government motion proposes
	“no sitting in Westminster Hall on Tuesday 20 March”.
	The reason for that is entirely understandable. Her Majesty the Queen is coming to Westminster Hall on that day to celebrate her diamond jubilee, so it is entirely appropriate that normal sittings in Westminster Hall should be cancelled for that day. No one has any argument with that. What the Leader and Deputy Leader of the House should have proposed, however, is the rescheduling of that lost parliamentary time at some other point in the parliamentary calendar, because effectively some of our precious parliamentary air time is disappearing. My amendment (a), supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone)—to whom I must say a huge thank you—suggests that that air time should be replaced on the previous day, Monday 19 March, while amendment (b) suggests Friday 23 March as an alternative.
	Westminster Hall is an important part of parliamentary procedure. The Leader of the House and his deputy have previously told the House that they support it and feel that it does a valuable job, and evidence from the Table Office supports that. The hard-working, diligent, capable, lovely, kind people in the Table Office have told
	me that they receive an average of some 60 to 70 applications a week for Westminster Hall time from Back Benchers, that there can be as many as 150, and that the number never falls below 40. What better evidence could there be of the popularity of Westminster Hall among Members? Effectively, however, the Leader and Deputy Leader of the House are denying Back Benchers the opportunity of a day’s debate there.

Peter Bone: We heard the Deputy Leader of the House suggest that the real problem was that the Government did not want to dictate what was debated on Monday. Is there not a simple solution? The ballot could proceed in the normal way, the listing for Tuesday could be provided, and the Government could then accept it and transfer it to Monday. That would help everyone out.

Philip Hollobone: I am most grateful for that suggestion.
	When I flagged up the issue during business questions earlier today, the Leader of the House said that the Deputy Leader of the House would provide a powerful response to my amendments during his speech. I do not know whether the Deputy Leader of the House left his notes in the Leader of the House’s office, but his contribution certainly did not constitute a powerful response to the amendments, which I found disappointing. This could have been the occasion for the establishment in the Chamber of a new doctrine, the Heath doctrine, to celebrate Her Majesty’s diamond jubilee. The Heath doctrine could have stated that whenever a sitting in Westminster Hall is cancelled for understandable reasons, the parliamentary air time must be replaced by an alternative sitting. The Deputy Leader of the House would have been applauded by Members on both sides of the House, and I am disappointed that he did not choose to grasp that chalice.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough is right: there are all sorts of innovative ways in which the Government could overcome the difficulty of allocating the time. If we accept that, as the rules stand, it is up to the Government to decide what debates take place, the Government could say, for example to the Speaker’s Office through the Table Office, “We must allocate this time, but will you invite applications from Back Benchers to fill the slot? We will then take your recommendation for filling the time appropriately.” That would have been the imaginative and innovative solution that I would expect from our two colleagues, and I am sorry that they did not think of it.
	There is no shortage of potential debates in Westminster Hall. Only today, we heard 37 Back Benchers call for debates on a range of subjects: cosmetic surgery, north-east regional strategy, the Royal Bank of Scotland, drought and the national water grid, the Olympics, working tax credits, youth unemployment, music exports, Syria, international women’s day, elected mayors, design patents, directory inquiries, high streets, defence procurement, work experience schemes, unemployment in the north-east, business in the community, the Backbench Business Committee, arms exports to the middle east and north Africa, apprenticeships, local heating schemes, music licences in public places, bans on protest marches, the economy, education and manufacturing, employment law, Professor Ebdon, job clubs, small and medium-sized enterprises in retail, manufacturing, energy companies
	and their customers, and the efficiencies of police services. That is just the list for today; I am sure that in most weeks many further requests are made to the Leader and Deputy Leader of the House.
	Representations to the Backbench Business Committee continue to flood in, too. There is a long list of outstanding issues for which it has not been possible to allocate any time, simply because the Government have not allocated the Committee sufficient time to be able to debate them. When the Backbench Business Committee was established, we were promised that it would get 35 days per Session. The gentleman’s agreement—to use a sexist phrase—was that that would, in effect, be 35 days per year. This Session lasts for two years, however, and although I am not a great mathematician, I believe that the Backbench Business Committee should therefore be allocated 70 days for the discussion of issues Back Benchers wish to raise, but today’s Order Paper reveals that it has been allocated only 53 and a half days, and we are about to go into March. It appears that we will fall well short of that 70 total, therefore. Some of these outstanding issues could be scheduled for debate in an extra day in Westminster Hall. That would go some way towards dealing with the large number of issues that have come before the Committee.
	Amendments (a) and (b) are reasonable measures intended to preserve the power of this Chamber to hold the Government to account and to allow Back Benchers on both sides of the House to raise constituency interests and concerns. Even at this late stage, it is not too late for the Leader and Deputy Leader of the House to have what was called this morning a Pauline conversion and to say, “Yes, this is a good idea from the Members for Kettering and Wellingborough. We wish we had thought of it, but we’re going to be charitable because we know that these two fine gentlemen have the best interests of the House at heart. We will support amendment (a).” If they were to say that, no one would cheer them louder than my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough and me.
	Amendment (c) would allow for an extra sitting day on Wednesday 28 March. That is a separate issue from the rescheduling of Westminster Hall time. It is, in part, to do with the issue raised by the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) about Prime Minister’s questions, but not for the reasons she suggested. I think the Prime Minister does extremely well at PMQs. It is an occasion when the great British public tune in to see Parliament at work. If we ask our constituents whether they watch any of the parliamentary television coverage, most of them will say that they do not, but most of those who say they do will watch PMQs. It is a regular half hour each week which people know is worth watching for information, news and, frankly, entertainment. The great British public look forward to Prime Minister’s questions and I think that, just on the basic level, it is a shame that the nation and the House is denied an opportunity for Prime Minister’s questions, regardless of who the Prime Minister is and of which party is in power, because it is a great British occasion. It is a shame that by having the Adjournment on the Tuesday, we do not get Prime Minister’s questions on the Wednesday.
	On a partisan point, I take completely the opposite view to the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith), because I think that the Prime Minister does extremely well at PMQs. I understand her point of view—she thinks he does particularly badly—but these differences are what makes for good debate and for the sense of occasion. I suspect that the Prime Minister enjoys Prime Minister’s questions and that he will be disappointed that he is not able to come here on that Wednesday. I suspect—this will doubtless be written down and used against me at some future point—that the Prime Minister is being given bad advice. I do not know whether it is coming from the Leader of the House or the Government Chief Whip, but someone is telling him, “Look, it would be a good idea to have the Adjournment on the Tuesday, so that you don’t have to go through all the hassle of Prime Minister’s questions on the Wednesday.” That is bad advice, wrongly given, and I suspect that the Prime Minister is disappointed that he will not have the opportunity to address the nation on that day.
	On a serious level, all this does mean that the nation goes without Prime Minister’s questions for a month when it need not do so. According to the Government’s timetable, the last Prime Minister’s questions before the recess will be on Budget day, Wednesday 21 March, and the next Prime Minister’s questions will take place on the first Wednesday when Parliament comes back—Wednesday 18 April. So for almost a month the nation will be deprived of Prime Minister’s questions. Will the wheels come off the country, will the nation stop working and will everything grind to a halt? No, of course that will not happen, but there is no need to have a month between Prime Minister’s questions. We are talking about the Prime Minister of our country, and it would be a good precedent—perhaps this could be the Young doctrine—if the sign-off note before entering a recess were the Prime Minister answering questions from hon. Members in this House, to set the nation off for the recess. Would that not be a wonderful parliamentary occasion?

Angela Smith: The hon. Gentleman makes a strong case about PMQs. Will he acknowledge that the Prime Minister will be absent again on the week prior to 21 March because of a visit to the United States, so we will have the pleasure of the Prime Minister’s presence and responses in PMQs in only one week out of five?

Philip Hollobone: I did not know that, and I am most grateful for the helpful intervention. No doubt the nation will be disappointed by that. I suspect that hon. Members on both sides of the House will relish the opportunity to see how the Deputy Prime Minister performs, and that may well make for a rather more entertaining Wednesday in that particular week. I am making a genuine point when I say that there is no need to have a month’s gap in between hearing from the Prime Minister, given that we could have a new Young doctrine that says that it is important for the Prime Minister to sign off on the Session before the recess starts.

Bob Stewart: I am listening carefully to my hon. Friend, but I wish to take issue on one matter. I hear from the Prime Minister almost daily in the media, in one way or another. We will not be
	deprived of the Prime Minister. He may not be in PMQs, but he is most definitely available and speaking to the nation much more often than PMQs occur.

Philip Hollobone: Of course my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kettering—[Hon. Members: “Beckenham.”] What did I say? [Hon. Members: “Kettering.”] I am sorry. I know Beckenham very well and I am very pleased that my hon. and gallant Friend is the Member for it. I am delighted by his intervention and he is absolutely right in what he says. It is an echo of the debate we had on ministerial statements, in that so much of our political life in this nation nowadays is conducted not in this Chamber, but in the 24-hour news media. Of course anything that the Prime Minister or any Minister says on a TV channel is not subject to scrutiny by elected Members of this House. The important thing about Prime Minister’s questions, and one of the great privileges of our great British democracy, is that we have the opportunity once a week to question for half an hour the most powerful individual in the land. That is a very important and, I would suggest, cherished part of British political life. It is a huge shame to dismiss that by having an early recess so that, effectively, it does not take place. That is my simple point and I suspect that the Deputy Leader and Leader of the House agree with it, but I am very sad that they are not prepared to take it up.
	The other point about losing the sitting Wednesday is that other things happen on sitting Wednesdays as well as PMQs. The rest of the House is in operation and we are talking about losing yet another day in Westminster Hall—yet another day on which a series of Back Benchers’ debates will not take place. Effectively, although I know Select Committees can sit when the House is in recess, it will mean another day on which Select Committees are not sitting and scrutinising the business of Departments. There are other knock-on effects from this House not sitting on a Wednesday.
	By moving amendment (a), I want to tell the House that we have the opportunity to establish two new doctrines in commemoration of Her Majesty’s diamond jubilee: the Heath doctrine, which will say that whenever a day’s sitting in Westminster Hall is cancelled it will be replaced by an alternative day, and the Young doctrine, which will say that just before the House goes into recess there should be a Prime Minister’s questions on that Wednesday to send the nation off on a happy note. I suspect—and hope—that the Leader and Deputy Leader of the House are big enough men to take up that challenge and establish those doctrines, but we will see whether that is true in the Lobby later.

Peter Bone: It is a great honour to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone), who made a most excellent case that has probably already persuaded the Deputy Leader of the House to agree to the amendments. The danger of my speaking, of course, is that I might dissuade him. Now we are to have Heath time and Young time, the Deputy Leader of the House might have to consider declaring an interest in the debate.
	I start by congratulating the Government on doing something that we never saw under the previous Government. Whenever these motions on the sittings of the House came along and were opposed, they used to
	be objected to at 10 o’clock at night and rather than arranging a debate, the then Government tabled them night after night, hoping that we would not turn up to object. Of course, we did turn up every night and eventually they had to give way. The Government have seen straight away that they needed to give the opportunity for this debate and they have done so very quickly, albeit on a Thursday when there are not normally many Members about, which could have meant that they risked losing the debate. Then I realised that this is a House matter, so they would not possibly be considering putting a Whip on. I have had an electronic message saying that we are suddenly on a three-line Whip, but that must be a mistake and I dare say that the Whip will disappear to change the whipping any second now. I am making a serious point, however, and I am very pleased that the Government have allowed this debate. I want to speak briefly about the three amendments, but I should say at the very beginning that I have had a text message from Thomas and I must make it absolutely clear that he regards the Deputy Leader of the House as a goodie.
	The Government are absolutely right to put the extra day on Friday 23 March. I agree entirely, as it makes eminent sense that the Budget debate should run consecutively, so I welcome and support that decision. It also makes a great deal of sense, because of the timetable of the Budget debate, to have that debate on a Friday.
	I also take the opportunity to thank the Government for the introduction of the Backbench Business Committee; they were instrumental in setting up one of the greatest movements towards parliamentary democracy for a very long time. Having said that, there is the issue of the Westminster Hall sitting, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) referred, to address. It is a scrutiny day and its loss denies people the right to a debate. I have to say that the Deputy Leader of the House’s argument that the Government would have to choose the topics was a little hard to swallow. Some people do not think that Westminster Hall is a very important Chamber or that the debates in it are important. I absolutely disagree. Westminster Hall debates are equally important as those in this Chamber. Indeed, I often chair Westminster Hall debates and I would argue that debate in Westminster Hall is better.

Philip Hollobone: My hon. Friend is making a very powerful speech, as usual, to which I am listening with close interest. Perhaps one reason why there are not more Members in this Chamber to hear this debate is that there is a packed Westminster Hall debate taking place on The Times’scycling campaign. Does that not illustrate the point about the power of Westminster Hall and the importance attached to it by hon. Members?

Peter Bone: I am grateful in one way for that intervention. The only problem is that that was exactly the next paragraph in my speech. Westminster Hall will now be packed with people discussing cycling. That was close to being the lead story in a lot of media outlets this morning, so the suggestion that Westminster Hall is not important from a national point of view is incorrect.
	Let me give another, more personal example of how important Westminster Hall is. More than two years ago, the Speaker graciously granted me a Westminster Hall debate to discuss a constituent of mine—a five-year-old
	boy who was suffering from a very nasty cancer called neuroblastoma. Due to red tape, he was not allowed to enter a trial that could have increased his chance of survival from 20% to 70%. To cut a very long—and unfortunately continuing—story short, the excellent Health Minster at the time, Ann Keen, turned up to that debate, listened to the argument and went away and sorted the problem out. That little boy then got treatment on the NHS in Germany. I believe that if it had not been for that Westminster Hall debate, that little boy would not have got that cancer treatment. So, the loss of a Westminster Hall day could be very damaging.
	In amendment (a), Monday 19 March is selected as a day for the relevant Westminster Hall sitting. That would be a suitable day because it is close to the day we are losing on Tuesday 20 March. Also, the House will be sitting on that day, so it will not inconvenience Members in any other way. On 26 May 2009, our excellent Prime Minster, who was then simply the leader of the Conservative Party and was about to embark on a very successful election campaign, produced a speech called “Fixing broken politics”. Anyone who does not have it should really get it and have it on their wall. It tells how Parliament is going to be transformed and many of the things in that speech have been done. There are one or two other things that are still to be sorted out, but we are getting there. In that speech, he said:
	“The House of Commons should have more control over its own timetable, so there’s time for proper scrutiny and debate.”
	That is what we are arguing about tonight. I think the Prime Minster put his point across perfectly and I could not agree with him more. By moving the Westminster Hall sitting, we would be fulfilling the Prime Minister’s desire by allowing Back Benchers to have a say in the timetable. We would also be fulfilling the Prime Minister’s desire for more and proper scrutiny of government. As we all know, Westminster Hall is one of the best places to scrutinise the Government on a particular issue. Therefore, if we move the Westminster Hall sitting, rather than cancel it, the House will definitely benefit.
	I am fully aware, as is my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering, that there is no precedent for Westminster Hall to sit on a Monday, but by being the first Government to have a Monday sitting, we would really show the House and the public that the Executive are determined to be scrutinised and to put Parliament first. That would be an extension of what the Government are already doing and it is quite appropriate and right that it should be called the Heath doctrine. I remember that when the Deputy Leader of the House and I sat on the Opposition side, he had rather similar views to mine. I do not know why, but sometimes when Members move to the other side of the Chamber their priorities and judgment are affected. He could show that that has not happened to him and we could have this wonderful doctrine.
	I understand that there is a problem with Mondays because, according to the rules of the House, the debate would have to start at half-past 9 in the morning, which might make it difficult for Members from further away to attend. That is why I also support amendment (b), which would put the lost Westminster Hall day on the Friday when the House is already sitting for the Budget debate. Members would already be here and therefore
	would not be inconvenienced. Of course, all the arguments we have made for not losing the Westminster Hall day apply equally to that Friday. If the Government do not want to accept amendment (a), I think amendment (b) would do the trick and I would be happy for it to be made.
	I do not want the Deputy Leader of the House to worry that he would lose the title of Heath days, because there is no precedent for Westminster Hall to sit on Fridays, so that, too, would be a new and good way of putting Parliament first. One of the concerns I have heard is the difficulty of getting Members to turn up on extra days, but of course only the Members interested in the matter being debated need to turn up for Westminster Hall and there are no Divisions, so it is not the case that everyone would have to come along.
	I will concentrate on what I think is the main amendment, amendment (c). In essence, it would make Wednesday 29 March the final sitting day before the Easter recess. We have heard the argument that it should be a Wednesday so that we can have Prime Minister’s questions. When the previous Government avoided sitting on a Wednesday, I argued from the Opposition Benches that it is essential that Prime Ministers are scrutinised as often as is practically possible, because the House does not sit for a full year and there are huge gaps, and I still argue that now that I am on the Government Benches. If we have the option of breaking up on either Tuesday or Wednesday, let us make it the Wednesday. If Members want to call that Young time, I am more than happy to agree.
	I heard the argument that the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) made about not having the Prime Minister here. The idea, from an hon. colleague, that the Prime Minister turns up so often because he does not want the Deputy Prime Minister to answer questions—I mean, how far-fetched can she get? When the Deputy Prime Minister speaks at the Dispatch Box, he sounds to me like a Tory, and we should hear more of that. Actually, it would be a very good idea for the Prime Minister, even if he was available on the Wednesday, to step aside so that the two deputies could have a go. I think everyone in the House would enjoy that.
	I will come now to what I think is the most important and serious part of the debate. It is a slightly complex issue. The Backbench Business Committee, which has been given the Tuesday for Back-Bench business at the end of term, has allocated it for a debate on assisted dying. We have done that because we recognise that assisted dying is an important matter that the whole House should vote on, and on a free vote—I am sure that all parties will have a free vote. We also wanted to give notice of the debate so that Members who are interested could prepare for it. It is not a debate that we can have the following week, as we need time to prepare for it. The usual channels had promised us a date in March so that we could tell people when there would be a debate on assisted dying, but we were not given a date.
	We were in a dilemma. How could we give a future date for a debate on assisted dying so that Members could prepare for it? The only date we could possibly give was the end of term, 27 March, but by doing so we had to get rid of the Hollobone day—the pre-recess debate on the new format, in which Ministers come along and answer groups of Back Benchers. Many Back Benchers who do not normally speak in the Chamber
	speak on those days about important constituency matters. So we had to decide, should we have the Hollobone day or the debate about assisted dying? We felt that we had to have the debate about assisted dying, and that was the only way we could schedule it, on a fixed date in March, and give people the notice that they deserve, but we were conscious that we would lose the end-of-term debate, which many people think is important.
	So the solution is to make Wednesday the last day of term. It would be a Back-Bench business day, and we could have the pre-recess Adjournment debate then, too. We would have Prime Minister’s questions and then the Adjournment debate, and the advantage is that we would not only get to scrutinise the Prime Minister or Deputy Prime Minister, which any parliamentarian would want, but let Back Benchers raise issues that were important to them, with a Minister or, sometimes on those occasions, a Whip responding to the debate.
	That is why on this particular occasion, amendment (c) is very important. The Deputy Leader of the House did not address it in his speech, perhaps because he had not thought or did not know about it, but now that I have explained it I hope that he will accept it. If he does, we will not need to press amendments (a) or (b), because the great advantage of amendment (c) is that it also involves a day on which Westminster Hall sits. There would be none of the problems to which he refers, because it would be a normal sitting day, and the Backbench Business Committee or the Speaker would be able to allocate the debates.
	The Deputy Leader of the House and the Leader of the House have done much to improve parliamentary scrutiny; I genuinely mean that. On this occasion, without any detriment whatever to the Government, we can move Parliament forward, so I urge the Deputy Leader of the House to support at least amendment (c).

Christopher Chope: I shall make a short contribution to this debate. In so doing, I very much welcome the Government motion, particularly the part that states
	“this House shall sit on Friday 23 March.”
	By putting forward the motion, the Government have reinforced the case for the House working a five-day week. You will recall, Mr Deputy Speaker, that many years ago we used to work many more Fridays, which were not just the exclusive domain of private Members’ Bills. Indeed, I remember whole-day debates on Fridays about issues such as road safety. If that precedent operated now, instead of the debate about cycling taking place in Westminster Hall as we speak, it could take place on the Floor of the House, in the main Chamber, on a Friday.
	By re-establishing the principle that it is perfectly reasonable and, indeed, desirable for the House to work a five-day week, the Government will, I hope, think more in terms of sitting on other Fridays when private Members’ business will not have precedence—Fridays, for example, during the debate on the Queen’s Speech, when there would not be any votes but when many Members would want to participate, as they will on the Friday during the Budget debate. That is an important precedent which should be welcomed.
	Amendment (c) would make the motion even stronger, as sitting on Wednesdays is important, not least because
	we have the chance to hear the Prime Minister responding to questions. Sadly, the contribution by the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) from the Opposition Front Bench, was designed almost to turn us off the idea of supporting the amendment. We do not need the amendment to hold the Prime Minister to account; it reminds us of how we got into this situation in the first place.
	We used to have the Budget on a Tuesday. It would inevitably unravel—this was a Labour party Budget—during the course of the afternoon, and then the Prime Minister would have to answer for the Chancellor’s failings on the Wednesday. The former Prime Minister Mr Blair decided that that was all far too embarrassing, and moved the Budget to a Wednesday so that he had a whole week before having to answer to the House for the unravelling of his right hon. Friend’s Budget. We cannot go back this year, because Her Majesty is coming to Westminster Hall, but in future years the Budget should go back to a Tuesday, with the opportunity for the Prime Minister then to make telling points about it on the Wednesday.
	Notwithstanding the specious justification put forward by the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge for supporting amendment (c), I shall support it for different and more reasonable reasons.

David Heath: With permission, I will respond briefly to some of the points that hon. Members have raised. First, let me say that I absolutely bask in the approbation of Master Thomas Bone. His views on who are goodies and who are baddies now represent the signal sign of respect across the country, and I am very pleased to know that I am a goodie.
	I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) about the importance that we as parliamentarians should attach to sittings in Westminster Hall. I regularly hear people speak as though a debate there was a second-class debate, as though it was beneath them even to appear there to speak to a motion that mattered to them, and as though the House was disrespecting the issues that are debated there. Nothing could be further from the truth. Until this House recognises the value of Westminster Hall debates and, indeed, debates that are now held here in time allocated to the Backbench Business Committee rather than in Government time—until we understand the esteem of those occasions—we are doing ourselves a great disservice.

Angie Bray: I would like to add to what the hon. Gentleman has said about Westminster Hall. I have just been over there myself, and an absolutely huge debate is taking place about The Times’ safe cycling campaign. In fact, it is virtually standing room only, even for Members who wish to participate. That is a serious debate that demonstrates that Westminster Hall can be a very good place to have important debates.

David Heath: It can indeed, with the one proviso being that the debate must be on a matter that does not need resolution by a Division at the end. Yesterday, I heard an excellent debate, which I sat through in its entirety, on the very sad issue of Kevin Williams and the events in Sheffield those many years ago. It was a superb
	debate, with every contributor making extremely valuable comments, and yet some were also moved to say that it was a shame that it was not taking place in the Chamber and that the Government—despite the fact that it has nothing to do with the Government—had chosen to put it on in Westminster Hall. That is a very unfortunate way of expressing things because it gives the public the idea that matters of huge concern to them are somehow devalued by being debated by parliamentarians in Parliament in a place where, yes, matters are not subject to a decisive vote, but some matters one would not expect to be so.
	I am glad that the hon. Member for Wellingborough referred to the use of the debating time immediately before the recess. He knows that I relish my involvement—others may not—in pre-recess Adjournment debates. I sometimes feel that I have rather more speeches to respond to than I have time available, but that is a different matter. Those debates are clearly valued by Members of the House. I hope it is a tradition that we can largely keep to, but I entirely understand the reasoning that the Backbench Business Committee has applied in this case.
	As regards the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone), I am glad that the hon. Members for Wellingborough and for Christchurch (Mr Chope) entered a reservation about having Westminster Hall debates on a Monday morning. Those of us who live a little further away from Westminster would find it rather difficult to get to those comfortably as well as being in our constituencies at the weekend.
	In moving the amendment, the hon. Member for Kettering mentioned what my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said in business questions earlier and asked me to be powerful in my advocacy of the case. I think the Leader of the House said that I was required to be not powerful but coherent and compelling. It certainly is not for me to decide whether I have been coherent or compelling; the vote will determine that in due course, so let us see.
	The thrust of what the hon. Member for Kettering said is that there are huge demands on time in this House. Of course he is right. There has always been great demand for time by Back Benchers who have matters that they wish to debate, and there has never been sufficient time on the supply side to meet that demand. Even if the House were to sit in continuous Session, it would not cope with the demands that are expressed every week at business questions, which are so ably answered by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.
	I have worked out what it would take to give a proper debate to each of the 51 topics raised in business questions this week. Of course, different topics are raised every week. We would need to more than double the time that we sit in this House each week. Does anyone think that is practical? Does anyone think we could double the time that we sit each week? There probably are some people who think that is practical, but most people understand it is in the interests of Members that they sleep occasionally and in the interests of constituencies that their Members sometimes visit to hear what real people have to say about real things, rather than simply spending their time in the House. I think it would be impossible to meet the demand.
	The question is how we can reasonably limit the demand and provide time. If we are going to change our arrangements, we should not make it up as we go along. We need to come to a properly considered view, taking into account all the pros and cons, as we have done previously when we have changed the Standing Orders. I simply do not accept that bringing forward an ad hoc suggestion without the benefit of Standing Orders, in the way that has been suggested, is the right way to proceed.
	The hon. Member for Wellingborough said that this House should have more control over its own timetable. I absolutely agree with that, and that is what we have given it. However, I do not think it encourages the House to be sensible in the use of its time if we ask it to reverse on 23 February a decision that it made on 21 February—to say on the Thursday the opposite of what it said on Tuesday. I therefore think that we should reject that proposal.
	The hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) talked about incompetence. I will point out incompetence: incompetence is the Opposition not being able to tell us until a day before what they will discuss on an Opposition day, when they have had weeks to prepare for it. She said that the reason the previous Prime Minister was so frequently away from Prime Minister’s questions was that he was going around the world saving it. I am not sure that we all recognise that description.
	The hon. Lady said that the Leader of the Opposition enjoys Prime Minister’s questions. I can see that he might take some comfort from being surrounded by well-wishers, all desperately hoping that he will do better than the previous week, with the right hon. Member for South Shields (David Miliband) willing him forward and the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) looking at his successor with avuncular charm. All those things might spur the Leader of the Opposition on to another of his relaunches—the man has been relaunched more often than the Padstow lifeboat. However, it is the purpose of the House not to give those opportunities to the Leader of the Opposition, but to ensure that Ministers are held to account. This House sets out its business in a proper—[ Interruption. ] Oh! Isn’t it wonderful? The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), who had such strong views about this business earlier in the week that he raised a point of order, has arrived one minute before the vote to say something from a sedentary position.
	I commend the motion to the House. I ask it not to engage in ad hoc changes to our Standing Orders by accepting the amendments. I hope that we will always ensure that the House has adequate time properly to scrutinise the affairs of Government.

Question put, That the amendment be made.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 75, Noes 240.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Amendment proposed: (c), at end add—
	‘and, notwithstanding the decision of the House of 21 February, on Wednesday 28 March.’—(Mr  Hollobone .)
	Question put, That the amendment be made.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 79, Noes 240.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Main Question put and agreed  to .
	Ordered,
	That—
	(1) there shall be no sitting in Westminster Hall on Tuesday 20 March; and
	(2) this House shall sit on Friday 23 March.

Business of the House (Private Members’ Bills)

David Heath: I beg to move,
	That Private Members’ Bills shall have precedence over Government business on 6 and 13 July, 7 and 14 September, 19 and 26 October and 2, 9 and 30 November 2012 and 18 and 25 January, 1 February and 1 March 2013.
	Apparently I was coherent and compelling in the last debate, as we won the vote; let us hope that I am as lucky this time. The motion gives precedence to private Members’ Bills over Government business on the Fridays that have been set out by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House in the business statement on 9 February. I do not intend to detain the House for too long on this issue. Standing Orders set out that there should be 13 such Fridays per Session. Members are aware of the dates set aside in the next Session, and I have received no representations about the unsuitability of any of them.
	I am aware that some thought is being given to the timing and process of the private Members’ Bill system by the Procedure Committee. It is, however, quite right that we should proceed on the basis of the present position until we have received alternative proposals from the Committee and the House has decided whether to agree to them. The House might be able to have that wider debate at a future date, but today’s motion is simply to give effect to the dates as provided for in the Standing Orders. No amendments to the motion have been tabled, so it is a simple choice: does the House want 13 Fridays devoted to private Members’ Bills or not?

Christopher Chope: I am glad to have the opportunity to debate this matter, as the Government were intent on putting it through without debate. The Deputy Leader of the House has just said he regards this motion as provisional, which rather concerns me. I was hoping to congratulate the Government on having endorsed the principle that the traditional 13 Friday sittings for private Members’ Bills would have precedence in the next Session. The hon. Gentleman has told us that that is what he is doing, but that it could be subject to change later on. When he responds to this short debate, I hope he can assure us that if there is any recommendation for change, it would apply only to subsequent Sessions rather than to the next Session, whose Fridays have been allocated for private Members’ business in the motion.
	It is important that we have had this much notice of the allotted Fridays, which should enable greater attendance than has been evident on some Fridays in this past long Session. The minimum notice given by the Deputy Leader of the House is five months and the maximum is more than 12 months. It should be possible for Members of all parties to arrange their diaries to make their constituency business subordinate to the business in the Chamber of the House of Commons on these Fridays. As I say, this debate provides an opportunity to remind colleagues of the importance of putting these dates in
	their dairies. Then, if they have been successful in the private Members’ ballot, they can avoid being embarrassed because they have committed themselves to some other activity on one of the key Fridays.
	That said, I hope that the Government can be deemed to have endorsed the principle that they support Friday sittings, which the previous debate showed that they believe in in principle. I hope that these Friday sittings will definitely happen during the next Session and that this motion is not in any way provisional.

Peter Bone: I am grateful to speak in this short debate. I would like to congratulate the Government on putting down so early the days allotted for private Members, so that we can put them in our diaries and be pretty sure that the debates are going to happen on those dates. I accept, of course, that they are provisional, but this is a very good guide.
	Will the Deputy Leader of the House explain why, if the Government can do that, they cannot allocate the 25 Backbench Business Committee days in the same manner in advance, which would be most useful to us? I entirely agree with the opening comments of the Deputy Leader of the House: he was very coherent and persuasive in the earlier debate, but in arguing a case that was completely hopeless. On reflection on the figures, he might realise that the number of Members voting for the motion was less than half. In fact, there were massive abstentions, which most people would regard as a warning shot or perhaps as a defeat for the Government.

Philip Hollobone: I welcome the publication of the suggested 13 sitting Fridays for private Members’ Bills, but I must add that I think it discourteous to the House for the Government to publish the calendar and circulate it widely before a motion has been passed on the Floor of the House. I understand that the calendar was published several weeks before today’s debate and, ultimately, the decision.
	The timing of some of the Fridays is different from that in previous years. For example, I think that this is the first occasion on which both Fridays during the September sitting have been devoted to private Members’ Bills, and I should be interested to hear from the Deputy Leader of the House why those two dates have been chosen. I am not sure whether it is a good thing or a bad thing, but presumably there is at least a modicum of reasoning behind it, and I should like to know what that reasoning is.
	I should also like the Deputy Leader to reassure me that the Government have no intention of doing in the next Session what they did in the present Session, when they blocked the progress of at least two private Members’ Bills by failing to move in a timely manner the money motion attached to them. I refer, of course, to the Local Government Ombudsman (Amendment) Bill, promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope), and the Daylight Saving Bill, promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris). The latter attracted huge support from Members on both sides of the House, and more progress would
	have been made on it—indeed, it could well have completed its passage through the House—had the Government not delayed the moving of its money motion by nine months.
	I hope that, in seeking the House’s approval of the proposed dates, the Deputy Leader of the House will place on record his intention of ensuring that the timetable is realistic, and that the Government will not try to muck about with money motions as they have done during the current Session.

David Heath: With the leave of the House, Mr Deputy Speaker.
	This has been a wonderful opportunity for a short debate about the dates of private Members’ Bills. We are always happy to have a debate when the House demands one. Equally, we are always happy for there not to be a debate when the House agrees to something without objection. That always strikes me as a sensible use of time in the House, which, as we have already heard in previous debates, is at a premium.
	I am grateful to the hon. Members for Christchurch (Mr Chope) and for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) for making clear the value of being given the earliest possible notice of dates when they are available to us. We always try to accommodate the House as best we can by providing early notice, and that goes for the printed calendar as well. That too is provisional, but it helps Members to identify how the timetable fits in with their personal and political arrangements. They can then notify us if there are difficulties, although on this occasion no one has mentioned any problems with the dates that have been allocated.
	This is provisional in the sense that any decision by the House can be rescinded by the House. Not so long ago, the House was invited to rescind a motion that it had passed only two days earlier. I cannot say whether at any time in the next year the House may wish to rescind the dates that it has chosen for private Members’ Bills, but I hope that it will not do so, because it makes sense for us to be able to plan.
	We are also in the hands of the Select Committees, including the Procedure Committee, which examines the proposals for private Members’ Bills. I have no idea what the Committee will say, and it would be improper if I did. If it produces recommendations and they are put to the House, the Government will of course respond, and the House will determine whether there is to be a change. Again, that would not be a matter for me, as a Minister, to determine.
	As for the question of whether adequate time is provided by the procedures governing private Members’ Bills, we are bound by a Standing Order of the House, but within what that Standing Order sets out, we try to provide the days that seem to us to be most suitable. The Fridays in September have been included because it has been suggested that it would be helpful for Back Benchers to be able to make progress with their legislation then, but if the House were to recommend otherwise, we would obviously pay attention to that view.
	The arrangements for money resolutions and the like are normally determined on a Bill-by-Bill basis with both the Member responsible for the Bill and the Minister who would have an interest in it. There is not a Government
	position on that. That often involves complex negotiation, because we all want good private Members’ legislation that the House can support where appropriate, while also ensuring proper scrutiny. That is our intention, and the intention of the House.

Peter Bone: Will the Deputy Leader of the House address the issue of why we can publish the private Member’s days but we cannot publish the Backbench business days?

David Heath: The answer to that is simple. Private Member’s Bills are dealt with on Fridays so they do not compete for time with Government legislation. As we know, Government legislation does not always run in a straight trajectory, not least because we are dealing with two Houses of Parliament, and there are therefore variables. We do not want to give people a firm calendar on which they then make their arrangements only for them subsequently to find that it has been changed at late notice.
	The hon. Gentleman has a point in respect of whether the Backbench Business Committee, the Government and others who have an interest should consider whether there might be a way of accommodating fixed-point debates, as it were, on matters that there is a relevant time to discuss. We should address that question in the context of the review of the operation of the Backbench Business Committee.
	Sadly, we are not yet at a point where we can decide with certainty and long in advance which day in the legislative week will be given over to what activity of the House, because there are too many imponderables. As a Government business manager, I would love to know well in advance the position in respect of every Bill before the House, but I listen to what both Houses say and respond accordingly. We all must accept that that means that there will be uncertainties in the future programme. On that basis, I commend the motion to the House.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Ordered,
	That Private Members’ Bills shall have precedence over Government business on 6 and 13 July, 7 and 14 September, 19 and 26 October and 2, 9 and 30 November 2012 and 18 and 25 January, 1 February and 1 March 2013.

RICKY BURLTON

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Stephen Crabb.)

Nick de Bois: I am pleased to have secured this important debate to raise the tragic death of my constituent, Ricky Burlton, and to highlight significant flaws in the current process, under which unqualified drivers are able to procure motor insurance and vehicle excise duty, which in this case played a significant part in Ricky’s tragic death. Aged only 20 when he was killed, Ricky was struck by a car on the A10 southbound exit near Hoddesdon on 4 June 2010. It is believed that an Albanian national, known as Georgios Tsoulos, who had been living in the UK illegally under a false Greek identity, was behind the wheel of the car that hit and killed Ricky.
	Following the incident, Mr Tsoulos was transferred to hospital to receive treatment for injuries he sustained to his face. While awaiting a further transfer to Moorfields eye hospital, he absconded and has not been seen since. He is still wanted for questioning, of course.
	Ricky’s parents, Dawn and Mark, are in the Gallery. Although they know that nothing will bring Ricky back into their lives, they came to see me to highlight how an uninsured, unqualified driver with a false identity was able to drive a taxed and insured car. They wished to draw attention to the probable scale of the problem and, more poignantly, to help prevent others from experiencing such tragic events. I pay tribute to Ricky’s parents for their determination to prevent other parents from having to go through what they have been through.
	The chain of events that led to Georgios Tsoulos driving the car that is suspected of killing Ricky is, sadly, straightforward, so let me recall the narrative briefly. Having established an address, Georgios Tsoulos was able to purchase motor insurance, probably doing so online. Although his lack of a valid driving licence would have invalidated his insurance policy in the event of an accident, he was still able to procure it legally, as people can. It is not illegal to purchase car insurance without having a valid driving licence, even though most insurance companies I have spoken to have told me that they would not choose to insure an individual who did not have a driving licence.
	This debate invites the Minister to become aware of this situation and, where possible, to answer the following questions: why would and why can someone without a licence, particularly someone using an illegal identity, gain insurance that enables him to drive a car with a very reduced chance of being apprehended? What is the scale of the problem? What steps could we take to mitigate this behaviour?
	Why would an individual who had no legal right to be in the UK and no valid UK driving licence wish to purchase motor insurance, which would of course become invalid in the event of an accident or a collision? The answer is obvious: it is so that he can use the insurance to obtain road tax, with the combination of those two things minimising the likelihood of him being picked up by an automatic number plate recognition—ANPR—camera. This gives an unqualified and potentially dangerous individual the ability to drive unchecked and unstopped.
	We encountered a few problems when we tried to look into how many people are driving without motor insurance. In respect of those driving with a false identity and without motor insurance, we are trying to establish and prove a negative, which is always difficult. We had previously written to ask the Department for Transport whether it kept figures on this. It does not, of course, but the Department referred me to a quote from the Motor Insurers Bureau stating that 23,000 people are injured and 160 killed every year by uninsured drivers.
	It is not unreasonable to assume that a fair proportion of these people are driving taxed cars as a result of gaining—albeit invalid—insurance, and thereby avoiding early detection. We have no idea, of course, how many people are driving on a false identity, but it is reasonable to assume that a significant number are doing so. Those figures fundamentally suggest that the size and scale of insurance-fraud-related injuries and deaths caused by unqualified drivers is significant.
	Insurance companies are not unaware of this problem. They are aware that people are using insurance policies to conceal their lack of licence and, thus, their illegal driving. The Association of British Insurers has told me that identify fraud, especially the growing use of fraudulent driving licence details, is a huge concern for the industry. The insurance companies have highlighted the fact that they have processes to try to deal with this issue. They will assume that a contract is entered into in good faith, but where they have doubts they will often, in order to reduce the level of policies taken out using fraudulent information, present photocopies of driving licences to the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency and pay a fee to establish whether there are any doubts about validity.
	The number of insurance companies conducting these checks, however, still seems relatively small. For example, in 2010 more than 210,000 applications were made by insurance companies to access the DVLA database to check an individual’s driving licence status, compared with total sales of 24 million new policies each year. I hasten to add that the vast majority of those policies will be for re-insurance, but even if less than 5% were first-time policies, checks are still proportionately small, leaving more scope for fraud and illegal driving to go unchecked.
	The circumstances that I have outlined conspire to make it all too easy for illegal and irresponsible drivers to take to the road, and that is not helped by the lenient punishments when individuals are prosecuted for motoring-related offences in this category. Figures released to me by the DVLA show that as of 26 September 2011, nearly 240,000 individuals on its database were classed as non-licence holders who had committed and been convicted of driving-related offences. That includes a staggering 1,218 people who have been convicted of 10 or more such driving offences without having a valid licence. I note that one individual is registered as having 31 driving convictions for not having a licence. It seems to me inherently wrong that we cannot prevent such people from reoffending at such levels.
	Such individuals are aided by their ability still to purchase motor insurance policies without having their driving licence status checked. How can we seek to ease the problem of individuals fraudulently purchasing car insurance by claiming to have a full and valid UK
	driving licence? I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response, but the answer could be very simple. We could, I anticipate, grant insurance companies real-time access to the DVLA database to allow them to validate an individual’s driving licence status, when considered appropriate, and require new policy holders to submit their details on their application, which is not yet required. I was pleasantly surprised to discover that some work had been undertaken between the DVLA and insurance companies to seek such a solution, but it appears that there might be some resistance from the DVLA. I would welcome any clarity that the Minister could provide either during the debate or afterwards.
	It appears that from 2009 until August 2011 more than £840,000 has been spent by the DVLA on something known internally as the industry access to driver data project. I am told that the intention of the project is to allow prospective insurers access to an individual’s driving entitlement and their current endorsement history, but it would also allow us to extend that benefit to rooting out possibly fraudulent applications. Although having already spent close to £1 million, the DVLA has been unable to confirm if and when such a system will be in operation. I am sure that cost-benefit analyses and discussions are under way with the insurance companies, but after such a long time, it would be useful to know whether it is anticipated that the plans will be developed any further.
	As I draw to a conclusion—I thank the House for its patience—it is important that we remember the human impact of all this. Those driving without the skill, ability or right to do so, who either hide under a false alias or take out motor insurance so that they can obtain vehicle excise duty to minimise their chances of detection, are a serious threat to citizens anywhere in this country. Our citizens could be run down at any time as a result of a deliberate attempt by a person to take a car on the road when unqualified to do so, which results in that person being a dangerous driver.
	Ricky Burlton paid a heavy price for that and his family continue to pay that heavy price. The loophole that allows individuals to purchase insurance without a driving licence and go on to tax their vehicles is creating the ability for dangerous, unlicensed drivers to drive freely across the UK. I hope that as a result of this debate, the wishes of Ricky’s parents that this matter is taken forward, and that their campaign and concern are registered, are fulfilled. I hope also that we might make some progress in clamping down on this very dangerous loophole. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

Michael Penning: It is an honour and a privilege and quite humbling to be the Minister responding to this Adjournment debate, which has been secured by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois), who is a good friend. As a father, I can only imagine the pain and suffering that Ricky’s family have gone through. I know they are here in the Gallery today, and I hope that some of my comments and those of my hon. Friend will help to bring them some comfort. I commend them for their dedication to the campaign they have been working on for some time with my hon. Friend and others on how we can close this loophole. I hope also that they and anyone else watching the debate
	will understand that Adjournment debates are usually a very personal affair between a Member of Parliament and a Minister. The fact that there are very few Members here in no way reflects how seriously the House or the Government take the issue. Indeed, there are more here than there usually are and that is because of the seriousness of the debate.
	For me, this issue came to light many years ago, long before I came to the House, when I was a fireman in Essex. All too often, we would attend an incident and the police would whisper to us, “Another uninsured driver,” or “Another one with no licence.” One thing I was determined about when the Prime Minister gave me the honour of being the Roads Minister was that I would look really carefully at the skills that drivers need to ensure their safety and that of others. I also wanted to look carefully at the whole area of car insurance, which we should remember is compulsory. Unlike many other types of insurance, which we can choose whether or not to take out, many of the things that are required by legislation when one drives a car are there because the state says that drivers have to have them. I was very conscious that we should look at the driving test, at the MOT, a review of which we announced in the House in the past couple of days, and at insurance. Why is it so expensive? Why have there been so many uninsured drivers out there? Why is fraud so easy at times? Why are people being allowed to do that and injure and kill other people while also pushing up the cost of insurance through their actions?
	I commend the previous Administration because it started the process of change by bringing in things like the continuous insurance legislation that says that if someone owns a vehicle for which a statutory off road notification has not been made it must be insured, no matter where it is. It might be in someone’s garage or in their friend’s yard but if the owner has not made a SORN, they must have an intention to drive it. That change started to deal with the 1.2 million vehicles on our roads that are not insured. However, it did not address the issue of those who are fraudulently driving a vehicle or taking out insurance.
	One group whom we have not discussed yet are those who commit fraud almost unintentionally, such as parents who say, “It’s so expensive for Johnny or Mary to insure their car; I’ll insure it for them and say that I’m the main driver and that they are an additional driver,” when in fact they are not. That is also fraud and when insurers realise that that is the case they cancel the insurance when someone tries to make a claim. That is a big issue and that boosts up costs.
	This issue is fascinating to me, and my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North is right that it is quite simple to address. The DVLA holds the details of anyone in this country who holds a British driving licence, so it should not be rocket science to say that if an overseas national or anyone without a British driving licence tries to get insurance and road tax, as my hon. Friend has described, to make it more difficult for the authorities to realise that they are driving illegally, surely those two parties—the DVLA and insurers—should be able to talk to each other, whether through the Motor Insurers Bureau or the Association of British Insurers. I asked that question very early on and was told, “It’s quite difficult, Minister. Let’s get the continuous insurance legislation out of the way first.” The Government
	had committed to doing that and the legislation is now on the statute book, and that has been a great asset in driving uninsured drivers off the road, but it is also a great asset to insurance companies and their profits, as we can imagine.
	However, as my hon. Friend suggested, the DVLA had already spent a great deal of money trying to give this porthole facility to the insurers. Some 18 months ago I made a speech to the insurers and said, “We will give you this facility. It is expensive, so we will need some financial help from you as well, because you will get a tangible benefit from this, along with all of us.” There have been some difficulties with those negotiations in recent months, which I think is what my hon. Friend alluded to in his earlier comments. However, I am absolutely determined that this will happen.
	Some people—the politically correct, in my view—have suggested that giving that information to insurers would be wrong because it would infringe data protection and the individual’s rights. I think the opposite. If someone is asking to be insured, which is a legal requirement for being on the road, they should supply all the relevant information to the insurer so that it can make a judgment on whether it wishes to insure the individual, because there are plenty of people out there who insurers would not want to insure—my hon. Friend alluded to some of them in his comments. The insurers could then make a judgment on the cost of the premium.
	Of course, insurance is all about risk. Around 50% of all insurance claims are personal injury claims, which is something else we are working on. In this area, I was told that we should be okay, but I said, “Let us look at it another way.” If a broker or someone who is looking for insurance online is unwilling to reveal that information to the insurance company, that is fine and they should not tick the relevant box, but I am pretty sure that the insurance company will not insure them, because they have something to hide. I think that we have gone over that issue now; there are still some concerns on how quickly we can get that facility, but I am absolutely determined to do so.

Nick de Bois: I am grateful to the Minister for his thought-out response to the questions I raised. I think that we could also give some financial encouragement to insurance companies. At present, if a vehicle is uninsured, insurers have to run a fund that means that they meet third party liability costs, which is a growing cost to the industry, so I would have thought that they should factor that into their calculations.

Michael Penning: My hon. Friend must have been reading my mind, because I was about to say that the feasibility of this proposal is not just about the necessity of driving people who have done awful and terrible things, such as what was done to Ricky, off the road, but about helping us all financially. We all know about the sheer cost of insurance; we have seen the publicity in the newspapers in the past few years. A lot of that is the result of uninsured risk. We need to ensure that insurers—in my negotiations and discussions with them I have reiterated this, because DVLA is my responsibility as Minister—do not go down blind avenues by saying, “This will cost us X, so what benefit will we get from it?” There is obviously a tangible benefit—one of the benefits my hon. Friend alluded to—but there are others, and it is not just in this sort of case that we would benefit.
	When I listened to my hon. Friend’s speech I noted very carefully that this was about people reinsuring. There is a big problem with drivers not telling their insurers when they are handed fines and points by the courts. They should tell them immediately, and the insurers should certainly be informed when they do their renewals. I think the insurance companies need to do more than simply ask, “Have your circumstances changed?”
	Only the other day, my insurance company texted me to tell me that my insurance was due for renewal. The text told me how much it was—it had gone up, as usual—and that the insurance company will take it out of my bank account at the end of the month and I do not need to do anything. That is very dangerous. It is convenient, both for me and, obviously, for my insurer, but there is no transparency for me, as the person being insured, on whether there have been any changes in my circumstances. I know that the small print on all policies says that we should inform the insurer, but the process should be much more difficult—just for that spare moment—so that we are able to gather the information and know exactly what is going on. It is in many ways just as bad as a parent insuring themselves for their child, but it is certainly not as bad as the case under discussion, because, as my hon. Friend suggests, such behaviour often occurs for a reason.
	People who do not have a driving licence take out insurance not because they think, “This is protecting the public or someone else”; they do so to cover up something. My hon. Friend is absolutely right: if you go out on patrol with the police, you see that the modern technology in ANPR cameras is absolutely stunning. The police know whether the driver has an MOT, is insured or is the registered owner. All those things flash up in an instant, and the technology is being rolled out,
	but it will not pick up whether the driver has a licence, even though it will bring up whether they are insured.
	There is another little problem, which my hon. Friend touched on, and it is to do with the new legislation on continuous insurance, because, as he quite rightly asked, if a driver does not have a licence why would they insure the vehicle? The answer is that it may be off the road, and although the driver might not want to SORN it, they might want to insure it so that if, for instance, their garage caught light and was not covered by their house insurance, the vehicle, which might be a classic or something like that, would be protected. So we must not put into the box marked “criminality” people who do not deserve to be, because there may be a tangible reason for their behaviour. But that is a small element and no excuse not to progress.
	As we move forward, as we use the technology that we have, as insurers see how they can gain the financial benefits and as consumers see the benefits, we as a Government have to enforce the legislation, which is on the statute book for a reason. It is on the statute book so that everybody knows what will happen if they are hit by someone else or injured by a vehicle.
	There is, as my hon. Friend said, a substantial cost from claims due to uninsured third parties, and it is something that we are going to drive down with the current legislation, but I hope that literally in the next few months we will come to an agreement with the insurers and their representative bodies. There is the will to do so, and where there is a will there is a way. It is something that I am determined to drive forward not only for Ricky’s parents, but for all others on the road, whether the issue is a financial one or involves those who have lost their loved ones, too.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.